Hey, Bill Clinton, YOU Of ALL People Shouldn’t Be Talking About Other People’s ‘Messes’

The ONLY president whose “mess” is literally staining the blue dress of an intern talked about George Bush and Dick Cheney’s “mess.”

So maybe you should just shut the hell up about “messes,” huh, Slick Willie?

At least Dick Cheney never had to redefine the word “is” in order to get his dishonest ass not only impeached but get his law license stripped from him FOR PERJURY.

But let me point out a little bit more about another Bill Clinton “mess”: we call it the 9/11 attack.  Given that Iraq falling to pieces six years into to Obama’s presidency is “Cheney’s mess,” just how much are YOU to blame for the “mess” that George Bush found himself in when you’d been out of office for less than eight months???

Let’s see what Slick Willie had to say about Dick Cheney:

Clinton Says Cheney Criticism of Obama on Iraq Was ‘Unseemly’
By Erin McClam

Former President Bill Clinton told NBC News on Tuesday that former Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent remarks on Iraq amounted to “attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made.”

Cheney, in an Op-Ed and a YouTube video last week, said that President Barack Obama had emboldened jihadists by mishandling the crisis in Iraq, where Sunni insurgents have rampaged across northern cities.

Clinton responded in an interview from Denver, where he is hosting a conference of the Clinton Global Initiative, his post-presidency foundation.

“I believe if they hadn’t gone to war in Iraq, none of this would be happening,” the former president told David Gregory in the interview, which will air Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

He continued: “Mr. Cheney has been incredibly adroit for the last six years or so attacking the administration for not doing an adequate job of cleaning up the mess that he made. I think it’s unseemly.”

“And I give President Bush, by the way, a lot of credit for trying to stay out of this debate and letting other people work through it.”

In an Op-Ed for The Wall Street Journal, written with his daughter Liz, Cheney wrote that Obama “abandoned” Iraq by withdrawing American troops in 2011 without leaving some forces behind.

advertisement

“Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” the former vice president wrote. He concluded that Obama was securing a legacy “as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.”

In 2007, during his wife’s presidential campaign, Clinton said that he “opposed Iraq from the beginning.” His aides told reporters that Clinton had supported giving weapons inspectors more time.

In May 2003, two months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Clinton said that he supported President George W. Bush’s authority “to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” according to The Associated Press. He was also quoted praising Bush’s early handling of the conflict, the AP reported.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a senator in 2002, voted for the authorization of force against Iraq. She wrote in her recently released memoir, “Hard Choices,” that she “got it wrong. Plain and simple.”

I mean, really, President Sperm?  UNSEEMLY, you say?  I mean, boy, THERE’S a word that certainly applies to YOU.

But let’s consider Slick Willie’s rather bogus arguments first.

What did Bill Clinton USE to say about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction???

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”  –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”  –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Bill Clinton – mind you this was BEFORE the gigantic attack on the homeland of the United States – ordered an attack against Iraq.  What did he say in ordering that attack?

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. [..]

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party’s other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM’s ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM’s effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM’s questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, “Iraq’s conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

Clearly, even Bill Clinton says we tried the diplomatic route – and exhausted it – to no avail.  Next we spanked Saddam.  When diplomacy fails and the spanking fails, what the hell do you do?

You demonize the president who made the decision after the fact, of course.  While saying “Shame on you for doing to Obama the same thing that I’m doing now to Bush.”

What did Hillary say?

 “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”  — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

And:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Hillary couldn’t wait to share in the credit for when we got that rat bastard Saddam:

I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote. I have had many disputes and disagreements with the administration over how that authority has been used, but I stand by the vote to provide the authority because I think it was a necessary step in order to maximize the outcome that did occur in the Security Council with the unanimous vote to send in inspectors. And I also knew that our military forces would be successful. But what we did not appreciate fully and what the administration was unprepared for was what would happen the day after.

But there’s more here about Bill Clinton’s “mess” than the one one the blue dress.  There’s the fact that eight months after you perjured your way out of office with your sperm on Monica Lewinsky’s dress, ALL of the nineteen terrorists who attacked us on 9/11/2001 were already in America.  They ALL had their marching orders, following a plan and tactics that had been formulated during YOUR presidency.

It was because of Bill Clinton’s utterly weak and failed response to Islamist aggression in Somalia that led a man named Osama bin Laden to believe that America was a “paper tiger” and ripe for a massive attack:

“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press…” — Osama bin Laden

Bill Clinton left America weak and blind by gutting our military and by gutting our intelligence capability:

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.” The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

Then there’s the DotCom Bubble collapse.  Did you know that thanks to Bill Clinton, $7.1 TRILLION in American wealth was vaporized and a whopping 78% of the major Nasdaq valuation was destroyed, in ADDITION to the 9/11 attack that he left George Bush with???

Bill Clinton – shortly before leaving office (almost as if he knew it would be a disaster) greatly expanded the Community Reinvestment Act which was the primary cause of the 2008 crash.

Bill Clinton left George Bush not with answers to the terrorists he had allowed  first to become emboldened and next to actually enter America and plan their massive attack and not with answers to the RECESSION he passed to George W. Bush, but instead left George Bush with the disgusting task of trying to clean all of Bill Clinton’s PORN out of the White House computers.

George Bush spent the rest of his presidency cleaning up your messes, Bill, you vile hypocrite.

The last thing this nation needs is another dishonest leftist hypocrite to run America even further into abject defeat than it is already.

Look Around At The Brave New World Obama Has Led Us Into

I wrote this article – which cited another prophetic article – way back in 2008.  Let’s consider it again and see if we on the right were right, indeed:

Left Decries America, Ignore Global Evil Of Leftist Regimes

There are more slaves today than at any time in history. Yet blacks in America ignore that tragic reality and instead fiercely decry this country over its part in an institution that was ended – at great expense to whites – nearly 150 years ago. And even though it is Islam and Muslim countries that are the greatest perpetrators of black slavery on the planet, it is fashionable today to be black and Muslim. Barack Obama’s former pastor gave all kinds of accolades to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakan, and Obama himself attended Farrakan’s so-called “Million Man March.”

The people who so stridently blamed America for attacking Iraq stand silently – or even worse yet, actually defend – the Russian attack of Georgia.

These are just a couple of examples of the leftists in America and the world who routinely demonize the United States while pointedly turning their backs on shocking acts of evil being perpetrated by leftist regimes around the world.

As writer Victor Davis Hanson points out, it is forgotten that America is the model, not the villain. And when the United States wearies of the constant attacks and ceases to stand up for freedom in the world, you will see a reawakening of evil such as the world hasn’t witnessed since the 1930s.

I came across this article by Hanson. It deserves a wide reading:

August 19, 2008 Brave Old World by Victor Davis Hanson Tribune Media Services

Russia invades Georgia. China jails dissidents. China and India pollute at levels previously unimaginable. Gulf monarchies make trillions from jacked-up oil prices. Islamic terrorists keep car bombing. Meanwhile, Europe offers moral lectures, while Japan and South Korea shrug and watch — all in a globalized world that tunes into the Olympics each night from Beijing.

“Citizens of the world” were supposed to share, in relative harmony, our new “Planet Earth,” which was to have followed from an interconnected system of free trade, instantaneous electronic communications, civilized diplomacy and shared consumer capitalism.

But was that ever quite true?

In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions:

First, the U.S. economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth.

Second, the U.S. military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. After the past destruction of fascism and global communism, the Americans, as global sheriff, would continue to deal with the occasional menace like a Muammar al-Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il or the Taliban.

Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world — like a good, nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers.

But there have been a number of indications recently that globalization may soon lose its American parent, who is tiring, both materially and psychologically.

The United States may be the most free, stable and meritocratic nation in the world, but its resources and patience are not unlimited. Currently, it pays more than a half trillion dollars per year to import $115-a-barrel oil that is often pumped at a cost of about $5.

The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans hold trillions of dollars in U.S. bonds — the result of massive trade deficits. The American dollar is at historic lows. We are piling up staggering national debt. Over 12 million live here illegally and freely transfer more than $50 billion annually to Mexico and Latin America.

Our military, after deposing Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam, is tired. And Americans are increasingly becoming more sensitive to the cheap criticism of global moralists.

But as the United States turns ever so slightly inward, the new globalized world will revert to a far poorer — and more dangerous — place.

Liberals like presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama speak out against new free trade agreements and want existing accords like NAFTA readjusted. More and more Americans are furious at the costs of illegal immigration — and are moving to stop it. The foreign remittances that help prop up Mexico and Latin America are threatened by any change in America’s immigration attitude.

Meanwhile, the hypocrisy becomes harder to take. After all, it is easy for self-appointed global moralists to complain that terrorists don’t enjoy Miranda rights at Guantanamo, but it would be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia’s democracy and bombing its cities.

Al Gore crisscrosses the country, pontificating about Americans’ carbon footprints. But he could do far better to fly to China to convince them not to open 500 new coal-burning power plants.

It has been chic to chant “No blood for oil” about Iraq’s petroleum — petroleum that, in fact, is now administered by a constitutional republic. But such sloganeering would be better directed at China’s sweetheart oil deals with Sudan that enable the mass murdering in Darfur.

Due to climbing prices and high government taxes, gasoline consumption is declining in the West, but its use is rising in other places, where it is either untaxed or subsidized.

So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain — and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.

Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s — with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.

If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause.

If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won’t listen to the United Nations, the European Union or Michael Moore.

Brace yourself — we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.

Keep in mind that Obama became president by agreeing with our enemies and demonizing George W. Bush for projecting American power and influence.  He came to office swearing he would undo the sweeping U.S. intelligence capabilities and he – unlike Bush – would get authority from the United Nations rather than engage in unilateral actions.  He came into office as the poster boy for everything that Victor Davis Hanson described as the evil that would result from America being weakened and deposed as the leader of the world.

And where do things stand now in this the fifth year of Obama?

120,000 people murdered like dogs in Syria.  The blatant use – in fact the blatant use FOURTEEN TIMES – of wmd by that regime.  The “Arab Spring” that Obama took credit for (and please see my piece here) turned into a bloody disastrous hellhole.  And Obama helped create that terrible disaster by 1) undermining U.S. ally Mubarak in Egypt by training and funding “community activist” rebel leaders and 2) so abusing the U.S. dollar that the countries that rose up in the euphemistically named “Arab Spring” – whose currencies were backed by the U.S. dollar and were therefore vulnerable to Obama’s fraud and failure – broke out in what amounted to FOOD RIOTS.

6.5 MILLION people have fled as refugees from this liberal-titled and hailed “Arab Spring” that Obama bequeathed the world.

As I’ve pointed out, the whole damn world is erupting under Obama’s failed regime.  He has emboldened our enemies as no American president EVER has and he has in the same disastrous manner alienated all of our friends.  Such that George W. Bush was able to assemble a coalition of 48 countries who were willing to follow American leadership and put boots on the damn ground while Barack Obama can’t even find one friend in all the world to lob a few cruise missiles into Syria.

I’d say check, check, check and check some more.

As for Syria and Obama’s suddenly feeling his testicles, let’s point out the obvious fact: if Zero hadn’t stupidly drawn his “red line,” does anybody seriously think that Obama would have been so urgently pleading with the world to please bail out his failed credibility by demanding a military action against Syria???

Combine that global disgrace with the fact that Obama has singlehandedly spent more money and added more trillions of dollars to our debt that will require becoming debt slaves to our enemies (that’s YOU, China) than every single president up to George W. Bush COMBINED.  It is difficult to answer the question whether Obama has been a bigger disaster in foreign policy or domestic policy because he has been an abject disaster in both and because each contributes to the disaster of the other.  Obama has “fundamentally transformed America” into a “new normal” of high real unemployment, low growth and no opportunity.  Obama has destroyed millions of jobs such that the labor participation rate is the worst since before Reagan came along to bring America back to power after Carter nearly destroyed her.  Only this time, American will very likely never rise again after this disgrace of a presidency takes its toll.  Obama has “fundamentally transformed America,” and that means his “new normal.”

The Obama administration has demolished American intelligence by being the worst regime in the history of the nation with its constant leaks that benefitted Obama (and see here) and that Obama incompetently failed to prevent.

At the same time that Obama has made American national security massively weaker, he has expanded the role of the fascist State in a manner we’ve rarely ever seen in American history.

We are not merely a nation in decline; we are a nation in stunning decline.

American leadership and American prestige has been annihilated under this failed presidency.  And when the world rises up in chaos and violence – just as Victor Davis Hanson predicted – please remember to hold Barack Obama personally responsible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What should Republicans do?  How should they respond?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was before the last massive attack against America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Trip Down Memory Lane Reveals What A Complete Moral Fool Obama’s Current State Department Stooge John Kerry Truly Is

Let’s see what John Kerry called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – stuff like “moral obscenity” and “a thug and a murderer.”

But like all things that emanate out of the demon-possessed soul of the Obama regime, that was then and this is now.  And what was fascist when Bush did it is the only reasonable course now.  And of course we needed UN approval then but we don’t now; and of course we needed congressional approval then but we don’t now; and of course Bush should have been impeached then for what Obama wanted to do now; and so one and so on.

Obama said Syria would be crossing a “red line” if it used chemical weapons.  Syria crossed that “red line” FOURTEEN TIMES and pretty much assured Iran that Obama would do NOTHING as they raced toward having nuclear weapons.  But what’s American credibility worth these days?  Pretty much nothing under the president who pissed away our friends while he emboldened all our enemies.

Democrats shrilly screeched that Bush had somehow undermined America’s prestige.  But consider that Bush had the “prestige” to lead 48 nations to put BOOTS ON THE GROUND against Iraq.  And Obama has so completely forfeited any and all trust from our allies that he can’t even get ONE ally to help us shoot some missiles from a ship far out to sea.

Let’s consider the comparison between John Kerry when he condemned Syria recently along with what that same traitor said when he demonized America back in 1971:

I mean, if you want to know just how incredibly evil and vile John Kerry thinks Syria is now, it’s so evil and vile that it’s ALMOST as evil and vile as Great Satan AMERICA is.  And that’s really, REALLY evil and vile.

But let’s recall that Syria wasn’t always almost as evil as Great Satan America in John Kerry’s diseased soul.  Let’s remember that John Kerry used to think – until very, VERY recently, that Syria was pretty wonderful and that Bashar al-Assad was his “dear friend.”

Let’s take a look at the abject moral idiot that Obama made his Stooge of State:

It wasn’t so long ago that Kerry made repeated pilgrimage to Syria, meeting with Assad five times between 2009 and 2011. Last year, he famously used the adjective “generous” to describe Assad, as the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens recalled in a column this past summer:

On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been “very generous with me.” He added that under Assad “Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States.” This is the man who might be our next secretary of state.

As Michael Rubin recently wrote in Commentary Magazine, Kerry’s staffers described “their collective cringe when, after a motorcycle ride with Bashar al-Assad, he returned to Washington referring to Bashar as ‘my dear friend.’”

Jim Geraghty of the National Review reports that “as recently as February 2010, Kerry was telling Middle Eastern leaders that he believed Israel should return the Golan Heights to Syria.” Imagine the situation Israel would be facing today if it had heeded the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman’s advice. The strategic plateau overlooking all of northern Israel might today be on the verge of falling into the hands of Syrian homegrown terrorists and imported Al-Qaeda members.

Kerry clearly believed Assad was honest and a force for stability. The National Review quoted a WikiLeaks document which revealed Kerry had told the emir of Qatar in November 2010, “Assad is a man who ‘wants to change’ and that Israel should cede the Golan Heights to the Syrians ‘at some point.’”

The National Review detailed more about Kerry’s positive impression of Assad:

After a “long and comprehensive” meeting with Assad in April of that year, Kerry described it as “a very positive discussion.” A month later, Kerry was back in Syria. His spokesman, insisting that “Syria can play a critical role in bringing peace and stability if it makes the strategic decision to do so,” asserted that Kerry had “emerged as one of the primary American interlocutors with the Syrian government.” Despite the senator’s interlocutions, Assad, it appears, has made the wrong “strategic decision.”

Before Kerry took the stage at the Democratic National Convention in September, the Washington Free Beacon in an article titled “An Affair to Remember: John Kerry Hearts Bashar al-Assad” called Kerry the Syrian dictator’s “highest-ranking apologist in American politics”:

Yet for all his admiration—his numerous trips to Damascus, his many public words of praise for Assad, his insistence over many years that the butcher of Damascus is a man of peace who seeks rapprochement with Israel and the United States—Assad has never repaid Kerry’s generosity with reforms.

Kerry thwarted efforts during the Bush administration to diplomatically isolate Syria after the administration’s own efforts to engage the regime ended in failure in 2003. Kerry served as the Obama administration’s envoy to Assad, leading a delegation to Syria just days after Obama’s inauguration. There he listened to Bashar Assad lecture him that Washington must “move away from a policy based on dictating decisions.”

The Beacon pointed out that even the Washington Post referred to Kerry as one of Assad’s “prominent admirers” in the United States. This, despite the fact that Assad has been a key backer of the terrorist group Hezbollah and that his regime possesses one of the world’s largest stocks of chemical weapons, including the nerve agents sarin and VX.

The liberal Washington Post once pointed this factoid out:

Assad’s Western habits and seemingly moderate views had initially inspired optimism among Western acquaintances and Syria watchers about his leadership of the strategically vital country of 20 million. Assad’s pledges to implement political and economic reform once won him prominent admirers in the United States, including Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

John Kerry’s views on Syria’s Assad possessed all the moral “wisdom” of Charles Manson not too long ago:

Kerry thwarted efforts during the Bush administration to diplomatically isolate Syria after the administration’s own efforts to engage the regime ended in failure in 2003. Kerry served as the Obama administration’s envoy to Assad, leading a delegation to Syria just days after Obama’s inauguration. There he listened to Bashar Assad lecture him that Washington must “move away from a policy based on dictating decisions.”

Kerry agreed, condemning the previous U.S. president while on the soil of a dictator who had spent the previous years assisting in the killing of American troops in Iraq. “Unlike the Bush administration that believed you could simply tell people what to do and walk away and wait for them to do it, we believe you have to engage in a discussion,” Kerry said.

A year later Kerry was reiterating his praise for Assad’s tyranny. “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region,” Kerry said about the prominent state sponsor of terrorism and host of jihadist groups. “All of us have to work together in order to seize real opportunities.”

And let’s not forget that Obama’s recent pick for Stooge of State once was a clear signal of weakness, WEAKNESS, WEAKNESS:

And in 2011, when Kerry again wanted to go to Syria, his visit was blocked–by the Obama administration. “The Obama administration and France reportedly nixed a visit by U.S. Sen. John Kerry to Syria. Kerry (D-Mass.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has cultivated a relationship with the Syrian regime otherwise treated as a pariah in the West in the hope of drawing it away from Iranian influence. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that Kerry had planned a visit last month, but the governments of the United States and of French President Nicolas Sarkozy blocked the visit out of concern that it would signal ‘Western weakness’ as pro-Iranian and pro-Western forces jockeyed for influence in Syria’s neighbor, Lebanon,” reported the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in March 2011.

Consider that THIS is the man Obama wanted to head the State Department.  EVERYTHING about the Obama presidency heralds “Western weakness.”

Obama has ALWAYS been a weakling and a coward and a lying demagogue without shame, without honor and without any integrity whatsoever.  And so has his Secretary of State.

I mean, yes, of COURSE Bashar Assad is a “moral obscenity” as well as “a thug and a murderer.”  But he’s a “generous” “dear friend” of a moral obscenity whom Kerry “prominently admires” because of all Assad has done to bring about “peace and stability.”  You know, by murdering at least 120,000 of his own people just so far…

Everybody, and I mean EVERYBODY who has anything whatsoever to do with Obama is a liar and a fool.

That’s why we get headlines like this one even from the incredibly liberal New York Times:

NYT: “Confusion, Anger and Mockery As Obama Delays Plan“

That NYT article points out what an object of mockery America is for being stupid enough and pathetic enough to elect an Obama:

Syria’s government on Sunday mocked Mr. Obama’s decision, saying it was a sign of weakness. A state-run newspaper, Al Thawra, called it “the start of the historic American retreat,” and said Mr. Obama had hesitated because of a “sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies,” along with fears that an intervention could become “an open war.”

Syria’s deputy foreign minister, Faisal Mekdad, told reporters in Damascus that “it is clear there was a sense of hesitation and disappointment in what was said by President Barack Obama yesterday. And it is also clear there was a sense of confusion, as well.”

And of course Obama is now mocked by pretty damn much EVERYBODY over there now:

“Dictatorships like Iran and North Korea are watching closely to see how the free world responds to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people,” the opposition coalition said in a statement issued in Istanbul.

Still, some rebel leaders were angry. A member of Syria’s opposition National Coalition, Samir Nachar, called Mr. Obama a “weak president who cannot make the right decision when it comes to such an urgent crisis.”

“We were expecting things to be quicker,” Mr. Nachar told reporters, “that a strike would be imminent.”

That’s why we’re in the mess we’re in now in this God Damn America.

Make Obama, Biden, Clinton And The Democrat Party Wear Nuclear Iran Like An Albatross Of Shame

I want you to go back to December 2007 and reflect on documented history:

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

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.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson missed the debate to attend the funeral of Cpl. Clem Robert Boody in Independence, Iowa. Boody was a Korean War soldier whose remains Richardson had helped retrieve from North Korea earlier this year.

The National Intelligence Assessment report on Iran, released Monday, was the focus of the first third of the two-hour debate.

The assessment concluded that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 largely because of international pressure — reversing a conclusion made two years ago that the nation was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.

The Democrats used the issue to criticize each other as well as President Bush. Yet their own prescriptions for dealing with Iran are similar — and fairly close to the administration’s approach of increasing diplomatic and economic pressure to force Tehran to suspend enriching uranium that can be used for making nuclear weapons.

The leading Democratic candidates have differed over whether to negotiate directly with Iran. In a July debate, Obama said he would be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a position criticized by Clinton and others. But front-runners Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all said they would not rule out military action against Iran.

For their part, Republican candidates have said that the new intelligence estimate did not change their view of Iran as a major threat to the United States — a view also held by Bush.

In the Democrats’ debate Tuesday, the focus on foreign-policy issues gave Clinton a chance to bring up what many people believe was the high point of her eight years as first lady — her speech at the 1995 U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. In it, she castigated China over its treatment of women, arguing that women’s rights could no longer be considered separate from human rights. The Chinese government blocked the speech from being heard within China.

As at the Black & Brown Forum here Saturday night, the debate did not provide any landscape-shifting moments. Exchanges among the candidates were polite — but also at times direct, particularly over the recent bill sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that unofficially declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to vote for the bill. When asked whether she thought the Revolutionary Guard were “proliferators of mass destruction,” she said “many of us believe that” and suggested that earlier comments by Obama and Edwards about Iran indicated that they did too.

Edwards and Obama responded that they believed Iran was a threat to stability in the Mideast but that the administration was moving toward an unnecessary war.

“What I believe is that this president, who, just a few weeks ago, was talking about World War III, he, the vice president, the neocons have been on a march to possible war with Iran for a long time,” Edwards said. “We know that they’ve prepared contingency plans for a military attack.”

Obama, who missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote in the Senate because he was campaigning in New Hampshire, also drew parallels to the Iraq war buildup.

Who – and which party – turned out to be right?  And who couldn’t have been more wrong???

Secretary of State Leon Panetta – serving as Obama’s attack poodle – spilled the beans on an Israeli attack on Iran:

Panetta believes Israel may strike Iran this spring
United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a growing possibility Israel will attack Iran as early as April to stop Tehran from building a nuclear bomb, according to reports.
7:03AM GMT 03 Feb 2012

The Washington Post first reported that Panetta was concerned about the increased likelihood Israel would launch an attack over the next few months. CNN said it confirmed the report, citing a senior Obama administration official, who declined to be identified.

“Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb,” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote.

“Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and only the United States could then stop them militarily,” Ignatius wrote.
 
Ignatius did not cite a source. He was writing from Brussels where Panetta was attending a NATO defense ministers’ meeting.
 
Panetta and the Pentagon both declined comment on the Post report.

Israel, widely believed to possess the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal, views Iran’s uranium enrichment projects as a major threat and has not ruled out the use of military force to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
 
Iran says its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

The Post article said the postponement of a joint U.S.-Israeli military exercise that had been scheduled for this spring may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon.
 
Washington and the European Union imposed tighter sanctions on Iran in recent weeks in a drive to force Tehran to provide more information on its nuclear program.
 
Iran has said repeatedly it could close the vital Strait of Hormuz shipping lane if sanctions succeed in preventing it from exporting crude, a move Washington said it would not tolerate.
 
Israel’s military intelligence chief said on Thursday he estimated that Iran could make four atomic bombs by further enriching uranium it had already stockpiled, and could produce its first bomb within a year of deciding to build one.
 
But in his rare public remarks, Major-General Aviv Kochavi held out the possibility that stronger international sanctions might dissuade Tehran from pursuing a policy he had no doubt was aimed at developing nuclear weapons.
 
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said separately that “if sanctions don’t achieve the desired goal of stopping (Iran’s) military nuclear program, there will be a need to consider taking action.”

What if Israel had done something similar shortly before our Navy Seals went into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden???  We would have rightly blasted such treachery.

That said, Israel has no choice BUT to attack Iran because Barack Obama and the entire Democrat Party are traitors and cowards who put the United States and the state of Israel at grave risk by demanding we stick our heads up our asses and keep them there until it was too late. 

Re-read this sentence: “”Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and only the United States could then stop them militarily.”  And let me translate it for you.  Israel will attack Iran – and start a war in the Middle East – because it knows it cannot trust a pathological weakling like Barack Obama to stand up to evil.  They know they will have to do what Obama lacks the moral will or courage to do; and Israel’s attack will mark the failure not of Israel but of Barack Obama.

Obama despises Israel in his actions in spite of his devious rhetoric and the thought of that nation having the courage to protect itself in the face of his cowardice fills him with dread.

You can bet that Obama won’t launch an attack on Iran.  Bottom line: he is a pathological weasel.  What he’ll do is sit back like a trembling little coward and wait for Israel to do what any decent nation would do for not only its own survival but for the sake of sanity itself and attack Iran.  And then Obama will tut-tut naughty Israel for its aggression.

This is the most obvious train-wreck in human history.  In early February of 2009 I wrote about America’s enemies seeing a weakling in the White House and smelling blood:

When Iran gets its nuclear weapons, we will start seeing some hard-core “generated international crises.” Right up the wazoo.

I’ve written about Obama’s dilemma in dealing with Iran before (and see also) Given the fact that Obama opposed the war with Iraq due to what he claimed was insufficient evidence of Iraqi WMD, how would he be able to go to war with Iran when the evidence will likely be even more flimsy? I mean, we were IN Iraq for several years; we actually SAW their WMDs in the Gulf War. We know very little about Iran’s weapons programs.

That same month in 2009 I wrote It’s Official: Iran Will Have The Bomb On Obama’s Watch.

In November 2008 shortly after the election I pointed out and asked: President Obama Not Ready For Coming International Crisis. Are You?

And before the election I explained the interesting phenonema as to Why Islamic Extremists Support Democrats and Obama.

Oh, I also pointed out the fact back in 2008 that Biden Reported Stating Israel Must Accept A Nuclear Iran.

In August of 2008 I asked a question: Iran And The Bomb: What Are We Going To Do?

And I can go all the way back to April of 2008 in one of my very first blog articles titled Democratic Debate: Promising Armageddon in which I concluded:

Allow me to guarantee you that a Democratic administration will see a nuclear Iran. Given their policy on Iraq, it becomes an implicit campaign promise. And it will see a nuclearized Middle East. Democrats have spent forty years proving that they are cowards who will not stand by their allies, and their actions will come home to roost.

A Republican president can say to the Iranians, “We went in to Iran when we thought they might attack us, Iran. And I promise that will do the same to you if you continue your weapons program.” And no one can question that. A Republican president can say to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, “We stayed with Iraq and defended them even when it was difficult, and we’ll do the same for you.” and no one can question that.

One of the things that I here point out is that even if Obama surprises me and actually attacks Iran, it will also be a shocking surprise to Iran that believes that Obama is a weakling and a coward based on his own words.  They would not have similarly believed that McCain was such.  Which is to say that even if Obama does the right thing and attacks Iran, it will be a war that didn’t have to be fought had we just voted with wisdom and courage in 2008.

Here we are now, on the verge of a nuclear Iran and a regional war involving Israel and Iran that the United States will most assuredly be drawn into at great economic cost (at a minimum) to ourselves.  Entirely due to the fault of Barack Obama and a treasonous Democrat Party.

When we voted for Barack Obama, we voted for a nuclear Iran.  We would accept nothing less.  We voted for the most expensive gasoline in American history.  We voted for an economy that would remain in shambles.

As I close this, I want to point out another FACT that history needs to remember.  I wrote a three part series in May 2008:

Iraq War Justified: Lessons from Saddam’s History (Part 1)

Iraq War Justified: What the Chronology Reveals (Part 2)

Iraq War Justified: Paralysis, Corruption at U.N. Made Truth Impossible (Part 3)

One of the primary points that I documented was that we had no choice to go to war with Iraq because three countries – Russia, China and France – blocked every serious international effort to prevent Iraq from developing WMDs which American foreign policy rightly concluded was unacceptable.  For the record, we are facing basically the same situation now with Iran and with Syria.  And how are we going to gain international cooperation when Russia and China can block any meaningful effort at international cooperation with their respective veto powers?

Three sites provide a list of statements that top Democrats made as they gave their support for the Iraq War before they treasonously turned on a president at war.  You can see that they talked as tough as “Dubya” EVER did about military action against Saddam Hussein; but when it came time for these cowards to put their money where their mouths were, well, that was when they cut and ran:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

I have repeatedly attacked the Democrat Party for its:

Opposition to the Iraq War (which 60% of Senate Democrats voted for, only to repudiate and claim Bush deceived them); opposition to the Patriot Act; opposition to Domestic Surveillance on calls from international terrorists; opposition to Gitmo, even though it is the only reasonable place to hold these people that no country wants; the demand for full legal representation in civilian courts for terrorists; opposition to even the reasonable use of profiling to weed out terrorists.  And I could go on and 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.

And to quote Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright who demonized America in his “No, no, no!  Not God bless America.  God DAMN America!” sermon, “Our chickens have come home to roost” for voting for this disgrace and this party of disgrace.

There is one person – Barack Obama – and one party – the Democrat Party – that are 100 percent responsible for the crisis we are about to face.

Newsflash: Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq

It’s really quite remarkable what the mainstream media gatekeepers somehow think isn’t worth reporting.

I would not have come across this story at all had I not been investigating the site of Questioning with boldness (his article link is here). 

Here’s the story Questioning with Boldess links to (I add the bold font):

WikiLeaks docs prove Saddam had WMD, threats remain
by Seth Mandel
October 28, 2010

WikiLeaks’ latest publication of Iraq war documents contains a lot of information that most reasonable people would prefer remained unknown, such as the names of Iraqi informants who will now be hunted for helping the U.S.

And although the anti-war left welcomed the release of the documents, they would probably cringe at one of the most significant finds of this latest crop of reports: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

“By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” Wired magazine’s Danger Room reports. “But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.”

That is, there definitively were weapons of mass destruction and elements of a WMD program in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq when U.S.-led coalition troops entered the country to depose Hussein.

Predictably, the liberal media did their best to either ignore the story–like the New York Times and Washington Post did–or spin it. It’s not an easy choice to make, since ignoring the story makes you look out of the loop and hurts your reputation as an informative publication, yet spinning the story means actively attempting to confuse and mislead your readers. CBS News chose the latter.

“WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs: No Evidence of Massive WMD Caches” read the headline on CBS News’ online. Here is the story’s opening paragraph:

“The nearly 400,000 Iraq war log documents released by WikiLeaks on Friday were full of evidence of abuses, civilian deaths and the chaos of war, but clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction–the Bush administration’s justification for invading Iraq–appears to be missing.”

There are two falsehoods in that sentence, demonstrating the difficulty in trying to spin a clear fact. The Bush administration’s justification for invading Iraq was much broader than WMD–in fact, it was similar to the litany of reasons the Clinton administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which specifically called for regime change in Iraq as the official policy of the United States government (Iraq had repeatedly violated international law, Iraq had failed to comply with the obligations that ended the Gulf War, Iraq had circumvented U.N. resolutions, etc.).

“If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow,” President Clinton said in February 1998. “Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal.”

The second falsehood was the phrase “appears to be missing.” In August 2004, American soldiers seized a toxic “blister agent,” a chemical weapon used since the First World War, Wired reported. In Anbar province, they discovered a chemical lab and a “chemical cache.” Three years later, U.S. military found buried WMD, and even as recent as 2008 found chemical munitions.

This isn’t the first time Iraq war documents shattered a media myth about Saddam’s regime. In 2008, a Pentagon study of Iraqi documents, as well as audio and video recordings, revealed connections between Saddam’s regime and al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Called the Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP), the report–based on more than 600,000 captured original documents and thousands of hours of audio and video recordings–proved conclusively that Saddam had worked with terrorist organizations that were plotting attacks on American targets around the world.

One way to identify a media narrative in deep trouble is the naked attempt to draw conclusions for the reader instead of just presenting the story. The CBS report on the leaked WMD documents is a case in point of the reporter telling the reader what they ought to think, knowing full well that otherwise the facts of the case would likely lead the reader to the opposite conclusion.

“At this point,” CBS reporter Dan Farber desperately pleads, “history will still record that the Bush administration went into Iraq under an erroneous threat assessment that Saddam Hussein was manufacturing and hoarding weapons of mass destruction.”

That’s as close as the liberal mainstream media will get to admitting they were wrong. It’s their version of a confession. The myth that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was WMD-free has met its demise.

And these weapons couldn’t simply be the lost scraps of Saddam’s attempts to destroy the stockpile, as Ed Morrissey points out.

“Had Saddam Hussein wanted those weapons destroyed, no lower-ranking military officer would have dared defy him by keeping them hidden,” he writes. “It would have taken dozens of officers to conspire to move and hide those weapons, as well as a like number of enlisted men, any and all of whom could have been a spy for the Hussein clique.”

But now that we’ve answered the question of whether there were actual weapons of mass destruction in Iraq–there were and are–we may have a more significant question to answer: Who has possession of these weapons now?

“But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms,” Wired reports. In 2006, for example, “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were brought in from Iran.

“That same month, then ‘chemical weapons specialists’ were apprehended in Balad,” the Wired report continues. “These ‘foreigners’ were there specifically ‘to support the chemical weapons operations.’ The following month, an intelligence report refers to a ‘chemical weapons expert’ that ‘provided assistance with the gas weapons.’ What happened to that specialist, the WikiLeaked document doesn’t say.”

Seth Mandel is the Washington DC based correspondent of Weekly Blitz.

Figures.

Given the fact that Saddam Hussein obviously had WMD prior to the invasion (it is a documented fact of history that he used them against Iran in their war, and it is a documented fact of history that Saddam used WMD on his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988).

It is also a fact of history that prior to George W. Bush invading Iraq in 2003, inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam for over four years, having been expelled by Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration.

Given the simple fact that Iraq is a country the size of Texas, and given the fact that Iraq knew full well exactly when US and allied satellites passed over their country, and given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s own generals believed that Iraq in fact did possess WMD –

March 13, 2006
NY Times: Saddam’s generals believed they had WMD to repel US
By Jim Kouri

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

While reporting on this story, Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly said he is not surprised that the CIA and other nations believed Saddam had WMD since Hussein’s own generals believed they had them. He said that this proves President Bush did not lie and that he believed what Saddam’s own generals believed — that Iraq possessed stockpiles of WMD.

O’Reilly also rhetorically asked when the Democrat Senators Reid, Kennedy, Durbin and others would apologize for calling President Bush a liar about WMD. He also asked when liberals such as Barbara Streisand, Jessica Lange and other would apologize to Bush for calling him a liar. […]

– you will explain to me how we know that Iraq didn’t have WMD how, exactly???

I mean, you dug up the entire country, did you?

Given the type of murderous crazy dictator thug Saddam was, and given the fact that he clearly had possesed WMD, and given the fact that he had in fact kicked out all the weapons inspectors from a country the size of Texas for more than four years, it would seem a no-brainer that the burden of proof clearly rested with the side that claimed that Saddam Hussein had entirely abandoned his WMD arsenal and program.  Which pretty much proves my contention that liberals truly don’t have any brains.  They are people who literally will themselves to be truly stupid; they determine to believe a depraved and asinine worldview that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality by sheer brute force of will.

That explains why so many American university professors continue to be Marxists (nearly one in five!!!) even though Marxism couldn’t have been proven to be more completely wrong and immoral both as an economic and as a political system.

Liberals are people who live in a bubble-world.  They live in a world of their own theories, and hate the real world.  And if the facts don’t fit their theories, well, they dominate the media and get to write the news stories, don’t they???

It is a good thing that journalists are atheists, because that means they don’t have to worry about the fact that one day they will burn in hell forever and ever for their rabid bias and dishonesty.

Obama Gets An ‘F’ In Keeping USA Safe From Bipartisan Commission

The United States is a sitting duck for any terrorist who wants to come and blow us up with pretty much whatever they want to blow us up with.

And the president who naively believed his “hope’n change” number would make the Muslim world love him – and by extension us – is responsible for our nakedness.

Obama’s contradictory and incoherent policies have left the military confused as to how to proceed in the war on terror.  And his demonization of the CIA has left the agency most needed to keep us safe bitter, sullen, demoralized, and more focused on protecting their careers than keeping
America safe.

And now we learn this:

Obama Administration Earns an ‘F’ on Stopping WMD Attacks
Tuesday, 26 Jan 2010 07:46 PM
By: David A. Patten

The national WMD commission established by Congress has given the Obama administration an “F” for failing to protect America from nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks.

“Nearly a decade after 9/11, one year after our original report, and one month after the Christmas Day bombing attempt, the United States is failing to address several urgent threats, especially bioterrorism,” stated former Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., chairman of the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. The report charges the administration “is simply not paying consistent and urgent attention to the means of responding quickly and effectively so that [WMD attacks] no longer constitute a threat of mass destruction.”

Surprisingly, the Commission concluded there still exists “no national plan to coordinate federal, state, and local efforts following a bioterror attack, and the United States lacks the technical and operational capabilities required for an adequate response.”

An outgrowth of the 9/11 Commission report, the WMD Commission is charged with evaluating U.S. defenses against WMD attacks. The report issued Tuesday examines 17 areas deemed vital to defending against WMD.

The Commission gave the administration an F for not improving the nation’s ability to respond rapidly to a biological attack inflicting mass casualties, and an F for poor implementation of the education and training programs needed to train national-security experts.

It also awarded Congress an F for poor oversight.

The vice-chairman of the Commission, former Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., stated: “We are also enormously frustrated about the failure of Congress to reform homeland security oversight. The department can’t do its job, if it is responding to more than 80 congressional committees and sub-committees.

This fragmentation guarantees that much of what Congress does is duplicative and disjointed.

Jena Baker McNeill, Homeland security policy analyst for The Heritage Foundation, joined the Commission’s criticism of Congress. “Congressional oversight chaos is one of the No. 1 obstacles to good policy-making on Homeland Security. It’s out of control,” McNeill tells Newsmax.

In another category, government oversight of high-containment labs, the administration received a D+. It said a presidential directive could be used to tighten supervision over dangerous pathogens held in these facilities.

And while the report conceded the administration had made progress in countering weapons proliferation in Pakistan, it said so much remains to be done that it could grade the item only as “incomplete.”

By no means was the report one-sided against the administration, however.  In fact, team Obama was awarded an A for helping to secure dangerous pathogens, and an A for developing a national strategy for advancing the analysis biological substances.

The report also gave the administration an A- for designating a special presidential adviser on WMD proliferation. The Commission also awarded an A- to the administration for creating more efficient councils for coordination of policy.

Overall, the report rapped the Obama administration for being slow to recognize and respond to the threat of bioterrorism. While conceding that previous administrations have made the same mistake, Graham said: “We no longer have the luxury of a slow learning curve, when we know al-Qaida is interested in bioweapons.”

In the report card, the Commission reiterated its December 2008 warning that, “Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013. That weapon is more likely to be biological than nuclear.”

Officials must assume a WMD attack “will occur” unless the proper steps are taken, the report says.

The report cites several recent incidents that suggest the nation is inadequately able to defend against a WMD attack. Among them:

* The H1N1 flu scare. The H1N1 pandemic revealed detection of the mass onset of disease, which is known as “domestic disease surveillance” is inadequate. Although the administration had several months warning about the flu threat, the epidemic peaked before most Americans had access to the vaccine. The slow response showed the United States is “woefully behind in its capability to rapidly produce vaccines and therapeutics….” While the virus may not have been as lethal as some doctors had predicted, a bioattack would strike without warning. The report says the lack of preparedness “is a symptom of a failure of the U.S. government to grasp the threat of biological weapons” although it notes the administration has done a much better job of responding to the nuclear threat. Although the Heritage Foundation’s McNeill says the administration did a good job of communicating with the public about H1N1, she adds: “We’ve still got significant information-sharing problems on this topic. We’ve got to … figure out much faster what the trends are.”
* The Christmas Day attack. The foiled attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day suggests al-Qaida is expanding its international partnerships. While that attack failed, “the United States cannot count on such good fortune,” according to the report.
* The nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea. Along with the political instability in nuclear-armed Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are cited as grave concerns. The report says the United States “must strengthen the nonproliferation regime, develop more effective policies to eliminate terrorist havens in Pakistan, and galvanize allies to stop the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs.”

Among the Commission’s recommendations: Congress should consolidate the unwieldy number of committees and subcommittees sharing responsibility for homeland security oversight.

Also, the government must get better at early detection and diagnosis of diseases.

The Commission adds that the administration must fix what it calls the “fundamental failure” to address “a growing shortfall in our national security workforce.” It states the nation needs more experts to help ward off a WMD attack.

According to author and noted correspondent Judith Miller, defenders of the president’s anti-WMD policies respond that Obama’s second presidential security directive was to construct a roadmap on defending the nation against biological-warfare attacks. Miller’s sources say the administration intends to seek future funding increases for non-proliferation and bio-defense programs.

McNeill says improving U.S. capabilities against WMD will require much better cooperation among federal agencies.

“If the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Homeland Security can’t work out their problems,” she tells Newsmax, “it’s difficult to see how there’s going to be any capable federal response to something big, which could inflict mass casualties.

So Obama isn’t just a failure, he’s a dangerous failure who could get millions of Americans killed.  And ditto for the Democrat-controlled Congress.

On issue after issue, whether it’s Gitmo, whether its the New York terrorist trial for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whether its troops in Afghanistan, whatever the issue is, Barack Obama has gotten the issue completely wrong and was forced to return to the Bush policies that kept us safe.

I’ve written about Obama’s stunning failure and incompetence relating to H1N1 vaccine distribution.  I’ve written about Obama’s stunning incompetence regarding the Christmas day terror attack that even liberals realize Obama completely screwed up.  I’ve written repeatedly about Obama’s utter failure to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons (and I have 50 articles on Iran and Obama – so you can take your pick).

Do you remember how Democrats blasted Bush over his statements that Iran was in the process of developing nukes? He was completely right, and they – as usual – were completely wrong.

The intelligence professional who has led both the National Security Agency AND the Central Intelligence Agency has blasted Obama’s incompetence.

The only thing that is keeping Americans reasonably safe is al-Qaeda’s fixation with air travel – which is far easier to safeguard than many other points of entry that are completely open (such as our borders — we’ve done nothing to secure our borders primarily because Democrats have refused to allow us to secure them).  Yes, they could easily smuggle WMD into our country and kill millions.  But they don’t even have to do that.  When they decide to start machine-gunning Americans in our shopping malls (just imagine the body count if a few dozen terrorist teams attacked us at about the same time across the country!), we’re going to start seeing how completely exposed and vulnerable we are.

Meanwhile, our failure-in-chief continues to run the show.

Obama’s Afghanistan Mess Proves Why Making Iraq Central Front Good Idea

Bush didn’t make a good case for invading Iraq – and the liberal, Bush-derangement-syndrome-media certainly didn’t help him.  He certainly could have argued his case much more effectively.

It is actually easy to justify invading Iraq just by quoting Democrats:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

One could also point out that A) every single Western intelligence service believed that Saddam Hussein was continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction.  They only knew for sure that B) Saddam had clearly possessed WMD, as demonstrated that he had repeatedly used such weapons on his own people as well as Iran;  C) Saddam Hussein was in fact training and equipping radical Islamic terrorists who could attack the United States and U.S. interests; D) Saddam had thrown out the weapons inspectors for 4 years prior to the 2003 invasion (Saddam ordered inspectors out of the country on November 1, 1997).  And no one could know what was going on in Iraq during that period.In August, 1998, absent effective monitoring, U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter remarked that Iraq could:

“reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.”

Kenneth Pollack, writing in the liberal journal The Atlantic, said the following:

This issue has some personal relevance for me. I began my career as a Persian Gulf military analyst at the CIA, where I saw an earlier generation of technical analysts mistakenly conclude that Saddam Hussein was much further away from having a nuclear weapon than the post-Gulf War inspections revealed. I later moved on to the National Security Council, where I served two tours, in 1995-1996 and 1999-2001. During the latter stint the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon.

He cites a number of reasons for the U.S. view (which, again, had been held by the Clinton administration as well) and then adds:

Western intelligence agencies understandably took these actions to mean that nothing in Saddam’s weaponry plans had changed.

And to that we can also add E) There is actually good reason to believe that Bush – and the Democrats quoted in the three sites above – were COMPLETELY CORRECT in believing that Saddam had WMD.

We know that long convoys went to Syria prior to our arrival.  Colin Powell displayed satellite photos of a 50-truck convoy en route to Syria.  And there is very good reason to believe that Saddam’s WMD materials were in those convoys. And see. And see also here. And here. And here.

Here’s an ABC story reporting on the story:

Part of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons program was transferred from Iraq to neighbouring Syria, and their status has yet to be resolved, Dr David Kay, the just-resigned head of the Iraq Survey Group, was quoted Sunday as telling a British newspaper.

In what it called an exclusive interview, the Sunday Telegraph said it was told by Dr Kay that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before the start of the Iraq war in March last year.

But there was another reason that George Bush decided to make Iraq a central front in the war on terror: he knew he could win there, and he knew that his victory would have a huge impact on the region over time.

Think of it: an Arab and Islamic democracy in the heart of the totalitarian Arab world.  Think of other Islamic states, whether Iran or Saudi Arabia, having to explain to its people why their countries shouldn’t be more democratic, just like Iraq.  George Bush believed that a democratic Iraq could potentially turn around a poisonous Islamist dynamic that was growing more and more poisonous all the time.

And with that, I introduce an article by Ann Coulter:

NATURAL-BORN LOSERS
October 14, 2009

The question of whether President Obama should send more troops to Afghanistan misses the point.

What Obama really needs to do is: Invent a time machine, go back to the 2008 presidential campaign and not say, over and over and over again, that Afghanistan was a “war of necessity” while the war in Iraq was a “war of choice.” (Oh, and as long as you’re back there, ditch Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett and that gay “school safety” czar.)

The most important part of warfare is picking your battlefield, and President Bush picked Iraq for a reason.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 — or the dozen other times American embassies, barracks and buildings came under jihadist onslaught since Jimmy Carter presided over “regime change” in Iran in 1979. Both countries — and others — gave succor to terrorists who had attacked the U.S. repeatedly, and would do so again.

As liberals endlessly reminded us during the three weeks of war in Afghanistan before the U.S. military swept into Kabul, Afghanistan has all the makings of a military disaster. It is mountainous, cave-pocked, tribal, has no resources worth fighting for and a populace that makes Khalid Sheikh Mohammed look like Alistair Cooke.

By contrast, Iraq had a relatively educated, pro-Western populace, but was ruled by a brutal third-world despot.

It’s always something with the Muslims. You either have mostly sane people governed by a crazy dictator — Iraq, Iran and Syria (also California and Michigan) — or a crazy people governed by relatively sane leaders — Pakistan and Afghanistan, post-U.S. invasion (also Vermont and Minnesota). There are also insane people ruled by insane leaders (but enough about the House Democratic Caucus). Sane people with sane rulers has not been fully tried yet.

Not only could regime change in Iraq work, but Iraq’s countryside was susceptible to America’s overwhelming air power. Also, Iraq has fabulous natural resources. Once the U.S. got control of Iraq’s oil fields, the Shia, Sunni and Kurds could decide to either prosper together or starve together. (And it’s not just oil: They’re basically sitting on top of most of the world’s proven reserves of cab drivers.)

By contrast, there aren’t a lot of sticks that can be used in a wasteland like Afghanistan, where the people live in caves and scratch out a living in the dirt. The only “carrot” we might be able to offer them would be actual carrots.

But Democrats couldn’t care less about military strategy — at least any “strategy” that doesn’t involve allowing soldiers to date one another. To the extent you can get liberals to focus on national security at all, you will find they are rooting against their own country.

Liberals sneered at Bush’s description of Iraq as the “central front of the war on terror” and a step toward the “democratization of the Middle East” — as Mark Danner did in the Sept. 11, 2005, New York Times — because sneering was all they could do. By design, Iraq was the central front in the war on terrorism.

Any fanatic who hated the Great Satan, owned an overnight bag and was not already working for The New York Times was lured across the border into Iraq … to be met by the awesome force of the U.S. military. Bush chose the battlefield that made the best flytrap for Islamic crazies and also that was most amenable to regime change.

Now nearly all denizens of the Middle East want the U.S. to invade them, so they can live in democracy, too. As Thomas Friedman inadvertently admitted, Lebanese voters credit their recent free election, in which the voters threw out Hezbollah, to President Bush. (American liberals, naturally, gave the credit to Obama, who they also believe is responsible for the sun rising every morning.)

Brave Iranian students who protested the tyrant Ahmadinejad did so because of Iraq — and then they stopped because of Obama’s indifference. Sadly for them, America’s foreign policy will now be based on a calculus of political correctness, not national security.

During the campaign, Obama prattled on about Iraq being a “war of choice” and Afghanistan a “war of necessity” for no more thoughtful reason than a desire to win standing ovations from treasonous liberals.

But lo and behold, those very liberals who were champing at the bit to fight in Afghanistan are suddenly full of objections to the war there, too. As Frank Rich points out: “Afghanistan is not Iraq. It is poorer, even larger and more populous, more fragmented and less historically susceptible to foreign intervention.”

Now they notice.

Afghanistan is a brutal battlefield, largely invulnerable to modern warfare — something the British and Russians learned. But as our military under Bush showed the world in 21 days, scimitar-wielding savages are no match for the voluntary civilian troops of a free people.

Bush removed the Taliban from power, captured or killed the lunatics and, for the next seven years, about the only news we heard out of Afghanistan were occasional announcements of parliamentary elections, new schools, water and electricity plants.

The difficult choice Obama faces in Afghanistan is entirely of his own making, not his generals’ and certainly not Bush’s. It was Obama’s meaningless blather about Afghanistan being a “war of necessity” during the campaign that has moved the central front in the war on terrorism from Iraq — a good battleground for the U.S. — to Afghanistan — a lousy battlefront for the U.S.

And it was Obama’s idea to treat war as if it’s an ordinary drug bust, reading suspects their Miranda rights and taking care not to put civilians in harm’s way.

A Democrat is president and, once again, America finds itself in an “unwinnable war.” I know Democrats will never learn, but I wish the voters would.

Ann Coulter does an excellent job depicting why Iraq was a place where we could win, and Afghanistan was a place where we could fall into an abyss.  Iraq – with its flat terrain and its conventional military dynamic, was a place where American technological might could completely dominate.

In making Iraq the central front, Bush chose a war that he knew America could win.

In demanding that Afghanistan be the central front, Democrats – and in particular Barack Obama – may well have chosen a war that we can’t win.

And Democrats now have a well-known history of losing wars since 1950.

Hence her title, Natural born losers.

And allow me to take that concept of the people now leading our country being “natural born losers,” and turn it to the even greater threat of Iran.

I’m going to close by pointing out that George Bush faced a similar dilemma in Iraq that Barack Obama will face in Iran: the utter uselessness and in fact counter-productiveness of the United Nations.

Russia, China, and France all had permanent member veto power, and all three had no intention of allowing any kind of meaningful sanction, resolution, or threat of military force to be passed by the United Nations.  While France has since joined the United States’ side, China and Russia will continue to be a thorn in the side of any effort to thwart Iran’s ultimate nuclear weapons ambitions (which merely continues a pattern that had ben going on for years).

Just today, Russian leader Vladimir Putin has put the kibosh on sanctions on Iran.

If Barack Obama still believes that he will be able to woo these countries – or for that matter Western Europe – to his side, he is a naive fool.  Just as he was always a naive fool for trusting in such patent nonsense.

And, so, just as with Bush and Iraq, Barack Obama will be largely forced to go it alone if he wants to prevent the terribly dangerous development of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Nearly a year-and-a-half ago, I pointed out that a Democrat president who demonized the war in Iraq would be unable to justify a war to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.  And absolutely nothing has since happened to change that conclusion one iota.

Obama Searches In Vain For CIA Director Who Won’t Offend Left

Obama’s first (and as of now only) pick for the Director of Central Intelligence bowed out of the process after the left tore into him as a “torturer.”  Apparently, John Brennan didn’t want the job badly enough to put up with the typical left-wing character assassination tactics.

Bill O’Reilly was on the radio yesterday pointing out that Obama may have a tough time finding a good DCI. Given the left’s hatred for “intelligence” and “interrogations” and many of the other things this country needs in order to keep itself safe from terrorist attacks, and given the appointment of Eric Holder for Attorney General, many candidates might well fear that they would have to choose between either protecting the country or staying out of jail.

The Star Tribune writes:

Finding a candidate for CIA chief who has the operational experience and is politically “clean” will be difficult, agreed a current senior intelligence official.

John Radsan, a former assistant general counsel at the CIA, said Obama has to strike a difficult balance.

“They need somebody who rose to the level of a division chief in the clandestine service but didn’t spend too much time” with former CIA directors George Tenet and Porter Goss and current director Michael Hayden.

“But in the senior ranks you can’t escape the reality that the CIA is associated with controversial practices since 9/11,” Radsan said.

Brennan served as Tenet’s chief of staff from 1999 to 2001 and as deputy executive director of the CIA from 2001 to 2003, as the interrogation and rendition program was created.

Scott Horton, a Hofstra University law professor who has worked with the Senate Judiciary Committee on the CIA’s interrogation and detention program, said he believes Congress would take a firm line against anyone closely associated with the agency’s harsher policies. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, tapped to head the Senate Intelligence Committee, opposes the CIA’s interrogation program and will play a key role in confirming Obama’s pick.

“Brennan knew it was going to be messy,” Horton told The Associated Press.

But while Obama has clearly articulated and supported many of the liberal positions regarding these issues, Obama suddenly finds himself in the position of where the rubber meets the road.

Here’s Obama’s petard from which to dangle: if he does anything to undermine the Bush policies that protected us from terrorist attacks in the aftermath of 9/11 (the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance of international calls from suspected terrorists, the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and yes, harsh interrogation tactics such as waterboarding) and the United States is subsequently attacked again, he’s political road kill.  But how can he support such policies given his previous public positions?  And how can he avoid the understandable outrage of his base who will justifiably feel betrayed if he affirms the basic Bush positions?

Meanwhile, we have revelations such as this one:

Study: WMD Attack In U.S. Likely By 2013
Commission Report Says A Nuclear Or Biological Attack Should Be Expected Within Five Years
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1, 2008

(CBS/AP) The United States can expect a terror attack using nuclear or more likely biological weapons before 2013, reports a bipartisan commission in a study briefed Tuesday to Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

It suggests that the Obama administration bolster efforts to counter and prepare for germ warfare by terrorists.

“Our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing,” states the report, obtained by The Associated Press. It is scheduled to be publicly released Wednesday.

And, of course, that report immediately following a terrorist attack in India in which nearly two hundred people were murdered, and in which Jews and Americans were specifically targeted.

Democrats attacked Bush Attorney General appointee Michael Mukasey and pressured him to denounce waterboarding as a legally permissible interrogation technique under any circumstances (whereas Obama has found an attorney general who is as willing to condemn enhanced interrogation as he was to support the pardon for convicted millionaire tax frauds).  Just as Democrats have now destroyed John Brennan simply because he didn’t come out forcefully enough against it to suit them.

But here’s a newsflash: waterboarding works.  I will make anyone who wants to take me up on it a bet: say the information is your social security number.  You try to mine from me by being nice, and becoming my friend, and giving me candy.  I’ll try to get yours from you by waterboarding you until you either tell me or you grow a pair of gills.  I bet you I’ll get your social security number from you, and you’ll never, ever, ever get mine from me.  Take me up on the bet.  As Inspector Hally Callahan once said, “Go ahead.  Make my day.”

We used waterboarding on three suspects.  You can’t exactly say we went nuts over the sheer pleasure of waterboarding.  And it worked every time.  We broke them.  They talked.  Hardened men who despised us and everything we stood for suddenly sang like jaybirds.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed broke and named at least six major terrorists as a direct result of waterboarding.  And as a result of the information that he provided, the US was able to go after other high level sources, and then use those sources to go after still others.

Now, let me provide you with the previous Democratic administration’s “alternative” approach:

[Zacarias] Moussaoui entered the United States in February 2000 and enrolled in the same Oklahoma flight school Murad had attended. After flunking out in Oklahoma, he resumed lessons on flight simulators in Eagan, Minnesota, where his eccentric behavior aroused suspicions. The F.B.I. detained him on immigration charges on August 17. Among his possessions, they discovered a laptop computer.

Eager to examine the computer, Minneapolis F.B.I. agents repeatedly requested a special warrant to examine Moussaoui’s computer, and bureau attorneys in Washington repeatedly denied their requests, claiming there was insufficient evidence. The special court that reviews warrants covered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has approved more than 12,000 Justice Department applications for covert search warrants and wiretaps and rejected only one since the act was passed in 1978.

Coleen Rowley      After the 9/11 attacks, F.B.I. agent Coleen Rowley, general counsel in the Minneapolis field office, wrote a scorching 13-page open letter to F.B.I. Director Robert S. Mueller III and the Senate Intelligence Committee. She asserted that the French government had shared ample intelligence on Moussaoui, including information on his links to Osama bin Laden, information that supported requests for a special surveillance warrant to search Moussaoui’s laptop computer in the weeks before the terrorist attacks. (The French, who had put Moussaoui on a watch list in 1999 because they suspected him of terrorist activities, insisted that they had shared their thick dossier with American intelligence agencies.) Rowley said some field agents were so frustrated that they joked about spies and moles for bin Laden working at Washington headquarters.

A Time Magazine story confirms the above account.

That laptop computer belonging to 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui contained enough names, account numbers, and information to have prevented the 9/11 terror attacks had it been immediately accessed.  But we decided that it was preferable to allow Moussaoui’s 19 terrorist pals to murder 3000 American citizens rather than risk violating his “privacy rights.”

And I hate to tell you, but we’re returning to that old position.

My view?  I wish we had acquainted Zacarias Moussaoui with the creative use of an incline board and a garden hose, and started asking him some questions.

Given the documented likelihood of a terrorist attack on American soil using weapons of mass destruction – again citing Inspector Harry Callahan – “You’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?”

“Well, do ya, punk?”

If you feel lucky, you might well side with Democrats.  You be opposed to any kind of “profiling.”  You’ll be outraged over the thought that the government would actually listen to calls coming into the United States from suspected terrorists overseas.  You will become totally unglued over the thought that we would be so barbaric as to waterboard terrorists, or hold them against their will at a place like Gitmo.

If you don’t feel quite so lucky, you’ll realize that we could very well find ourselves in a situation where we detain a terrorist suspect, and need to find out what he knows while the clock ticks down to the launching of a WMD-attack that will leave hundreds of thousands or more Americans dead.  And you count on your government to protect you by forcing that homicidal S.O.B. to talk before his friends murder you and your entire extended family.

Based on the results of November 4, we’re feeling pretty darn lucky.  You would never elect Democrats to have total control over your protection if you weren’t.

Now all we can do is hope that Barack Obama looks at the intelligence information detailing the threats against this country, faints out of sheer terror, regains consciousness, and proceeds to break virtually every single one of his foreign policy campaign promises in order to actually protect this country from violent people who hate it with a psychotic passion.  We have to hope that Obama realizes that one attack – given the fact that Bush protected us – will likely spell his political demise as an outraged country repudiates both his leadership and the Democratic Party that put him in power, and that he will take appropriate steps to fulfill his foremost role as President and protect this country.

And, yeah, given who we’ve chosen to protect us, and given the events of just the last week (e.g. the Mumbai terror attacks, and the official report predicting a major WMD terror attack on US soil), we’re going to need to be lucky.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biden went on to say:

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

“Gird your loins,” Biden warned.

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

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

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

The interview with Bolton continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope we’re ready.  We voted for it.

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

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

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