Today in the Ohio Senate

The Senate will consider the following during today’s session (1:30 p.m.):

Urging Disapproval of the Iran Nuclear Deal: Senator Joe Uecker (R-Miami Township) sponsored Senate Concurrent Resolution 9 to urge Congress to vote against President Obama's proposed Iranian nuclear agreement. Beyond security concerns, the proposed agreement includes coercive language that may compel state and local officials to change their policies in order to satisfy the new relationship between the United States and Iran.

Administering an Efficient Justice System: House Bill 11, sponsored by Representative Andrew Brenner (R-Powell), seeks to create a judgeship to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, which currently has two judges. Delaware County has nearly doubled in population over the last 25 years. The growing population requires additional services from the county, including an additional judgeship to focus on domestic relations.

Raising Awareness about Breast Cancer: Sponsored by Representatives Al Landis (R-Dover) and Nan Baker (R-Westlake), House Bill 93 permits motorcycles to apply for a “Breast Cancer Awareness” license plate.

Honoring Astronaut Neil Armstrong: Senator Shannon Jones (R-Springboro) sponsored Senate Bill 131, which designates a stretch of State Route 123 within Warren County as the Neil Armstrong Memorial Highway.

Supporting Baseball for All: Senate Bill 159, sponsored by Senator Jim Hughes (R-Columbus), designates a "Baseball for All" license plate with proceeds from each purchased plate going to the Grove City Little League Dream Field Fund. Dream Field allows people with special needs, including those who use wheelchairs and walkers, to be able to access and use the field.

Boehner Threatens to Sue Obama over Iran Deal; Nobody Believes Him

The Daily Signal:

Boehner said the president did not disclose every piece of the accord to Congress as required by law and that a lawsuit over the deal is “an option that is very possible.”

“If you read the provisions in [the congressional review law], it’s pretty clear that the president has not complied,” Boehner said during his weekly press conference Thursday. “Because it makes clear that any side agreements and any other type of an agreement—including those that do not directly involve us—must be turned over as part of it. I do not believe that he’s complied.”

Maybe the Tan Man needs to cry more when he delivers these pronouncements because NOBODY is buying what he's selling.

NOBODY.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post says the Speaker is too busy battling...wait for it...conservatives in his own party.

“The people considering this are being totally irresponsible, but Boehner’s guys, we’re getting ready for whatever may come — not out of fear, but with exasperation about what some Republicans are willing to do to their own party,” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who is part of the speaker’s circle of unofficial advisers.

Now THIS I believe. The only time the Republican establishment ever has any backbone whatsoever is when they are facing off against conservative Republicans who actually want to do something with the GOP Platform rather than just ignore it.

When will leadership, at any level of the Republican Party, start fighting Democrats with the same level of vigor as they do against conservatives?

It's a mystery.

Obama Lied about Israel Concessions-Iran Compliance Connection

One of the sad benefits of the wikileaks debacle is seeing how sinister and manipulative this administration is. For the purpose of doing nothing, Obama artificially tied Israel making concessions to Hezbollah and Hamas to getting sanctions from Iran, knowing that in fact it did not matter to heads of state in the MidEast (like King Abdullah) who privately expressed fear and a desire to be rid of Iran. Check it out:

But -- as the Wikileaks disclosures make clear -- Israeli concessions have (and had) nothing at all to do with stopping Iran. Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries wanted Iran crushed -- as King Abdullah put it, "cut off the head of the snake" -- period.

Let me repeat: Obama knew all along that Israeli concessions had nothing to do with stopping Iran's march to nuclear weapons. Yet he persisted in linking the two, even though it raised the risk of an atomic conflagration that could engulf the world.

And, in typical Jimmy Carter 2.0 fashion, he overly trusted the Russians, trading our defense shield for aid in cajoling Iran from Russia that never materialized. Who exactly are you trying to help, Barry? The free world does not appear to be it.

Josh Mandel on Right and Wrong

The following is the text from a campaign email sent out by Josh Mandel:

Matt,

We’ve been working for over a year to create the most tech-savvy and motivated grassroots team in Ohio, communicating our message of integrity and fiscal discipline throughout the state.

In an act of desperation, my opponent has just attacked me on an issue that is about Right vs. Wrong, and demonstrated that he will stop at absolutely nothing to try to slow the growing momentum that we have steaming forward in all 88 counties.

Here’s what’s happening…

A few years ago, I led the charge to stop the Ohio pension funds from investing in terrorist-sponsoring nations such as Iran, a country funding roadside bombs killing American troops overseas. I stood strong against enormous pressure, because as a U.S. Marine and Iraq War veteran, I knew it was the right thing to do.

Now, as the radical Islamic regime in Iran actually digs in deeper and recently called September 11th a “Big Fabrication”, my opponent has attacked me regarding my leadership on the Iran divestment legislation!

Needless to say, his attack is backfiring, and our campaign has been flooded by new volunteers and donors throughout the state – Democrats, Republicans, retirees and tons of veterans – who have now set their targets on removing my opponent from office and helping us win this upcoming election.

Today I am asking for your help to send my opponent a message:

That there’s something very wrong about the retirement dollars of American police officers, fire fighters and teachers being used to kill young Americans serving our country in uniform overseas.

Your contribution of $50, $100, $250, $500 or even more will go a long way towards sending this message and combating my opponent’s desperate attacks.

My opponent has now drawn a line in the sand on this Iran divestment issue, and has given us a great opportunity to communicate to voters our difference of opinion on this important issue. However, I can’t communicate to 11 million people statewide without adequate financial resources to pay for it, and I would greatly appreciate your consideration of a donation today.

And if the story above doesn’t motivate you enough to help, please continue reading to learn who’s actually funding my opponent’s attacks…

The Dayton Daily News has just exposed that one of the largest funders of my opponent’s attack team is a Massachusetts lobbyist who:

- Lobbied to help Swiss banks keep Holocaust survivors from recovering their assets hidden by the Nazis…

- Lobbied for Enron even as the company went bankrupt and cost Ohio retirees $114 million…

- Attempted and was shut down from lobbying for a foreign government classified as a “State Sponsor of Terror” by the U.S. Department of State.

My opponent has collected more than $20,000 from this Massachusetts lobbyist and his associates, and now community leaders throughout Ohio are calling on my opponent to unload this dirty money and give it away to charity. However, in an act of arrogance and complete disregard for the meaning of this filthy cash, my opponent has refused to unload any of it.

So today, we are embarking on a mission to send this Massachusetts lobbyist and my opponent a message:

That their dirty money and attacks will be met with a force of patriotic Americans who know Right from Wrong and are proud to stand on the side of integrity and American values.

In the next 48 hours, we are attempting to raise on the internet, more than the $20,000+ that this Massachusetts lobbyist and his associates have given my opponent.

Please click here to support the cause today! Your contribution of $50, $100, $250, $500 or even more will help me combat my opponent’s dirty money dollar-for-dollar!

I’m not surprised that my opponent is reaching lower and lower, because he knows that the thousands of Republicans, Democrats and Independents we have helping each day are dedicated, motivated and laser-beam focused on putting new leadership in the State Treasurer’s office.

As we defend these desperate attacks and continue charging forward, I greatly appreciate your consideration of support today and look forward to working with you towards victory this fall!

Thanks again,
Josh

Even the UAE Realizes Iran is a Threat!

Gosh, the UAE is more realistic and sensible when it comes to Iran than President Obama and his idiotarian state department and advisers are. From Fox News:

ASPEN, Colorado — The United Arab Emirates ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that the benefits of bombing Iran’s nuclear program outweigh the short-term costs such an attack would impose. In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran’s nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country’s quest for nuclear weapons.”
Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba: “I think it’s a cost-benefit analysis. I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion… there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what. If you are asking me, ‘Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?’ my answer is still the same: ‘We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.’ I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E.”

C'mon, everybody, sing along with Johnny:

Another Obama Mistake: Trusting Russia

Look, don't get me wrong. I have some Russian friends. One of my favorite hockey players is Russian. However, you cannot trust the nation of Russia, especially under Vlad Putin. This guy is a throwback to the days of the Cold War. He is just as paranoid as Stalin and twice as cunning. He is KGB for goodness sake! Here is what Russia has to say about sanctions against Iran and nuclear policy:

Russia's Foreign Ministry said on Thursday that new U.N. sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear programme do not oblige Moscow to scrap a controversial deal to deliver surface-to-air missiles to Iran.

Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko spoke after the Interfax news agency cited a Russian arms industry source as saying Russia would freeze its unfulfilled contract to sell S-300 missiles to Iran because of the sactions.

But it's OK Barry. Tell Russia we are scrapping our nukes. Tell them how many we have. They are our friends, right? Yeah, and these are not the droids you are lookin for.....geez.

Why Does Obama Hate Our Allies?

Obama hates Israel. That is evidenced by his treatment of BB Netanyahu, as well as his stance and tacit agreement with condemning Israel for the "peaceful" blockade runner episode last week, as well as some of his homeland security and intelligence folks saying we should shoot down Israeli jets headed for bombing Iran.


He sold out our Eastern European allies by giving up the missile shield as a concession to Russia (more on that later) in order to get a "victory" in terms of diplomacy. Now, he has angered the Brits. Gee, if this is how he treats the friends of the US, one wonders if he really has the interests of the US and its allies at heart? How is that "smart diplomacy" working for ya, Barry?
From the London Evening Standard:

Senior Tories today warned Barack Obama to back off as billions of pounds were wiped off BP shares in the row over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Mayor Boris Johnson demanded an end to “anti-British rhetoric, buck-passing and name-calling” after days of scathing criticism directed at BP by the President and other US politicians.

Former Conservative Party chairman Lord Tebbit branded Mr Obama's conduct “despicable”. And with the dispute threatening to escalate into a diplomatic row, Mr Johnson also appeared to suggest that David Cameron should step in to defend BP.

He spoke as the US onslaught against the firm became a “matter of national concern” — especially given its importance to British pensions, which lost much of their value today as BP shares plunged to a 13-year low.

Asked on BBC Radio 4's Today whether he thought the Prime Minister should intervene, Mr Johnson said: “Well I do think there is something slightly worrying about the anti-British rhetoric that seems to be permeating from America. Yes I suppose that's right.

I would like to see cool heads and a bit of calm reflection about how to deal with this problem rather than endlessly buck-passing and name-calling.

“When you consider the huge exposure of British pension funds to BP and its share price, and the vital importance of BP, then I do think it starts to become a matter of national concern if a great UK company is being continually beaten up on the international airwaves.

“OK, it has presided over a catastrophic accident which it is trying to remedy but ultimately it cannot be faulted because it was an accident that took place. BP, I think is paying a very, very heavy price indeed.”

People are judged by their actions, not just what they say. Does Obama's stance toward our friends seem like he is an ally? And what about his stance toward our enemies? Hmmmm.....

Obama's Apology Tour Has Done Nothing But Weaken America

Barack Obama's bowing, IPod giving, I'm a Citizen of the world, taking Michelle out on expensive dates on your dime, America Sucks and We're Sorry Apology tour has done nothing but add to the national debt and erode confidence and respect for the strength of our country. While Obama has been apologizing to the likes of Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Japan, and others, while flipping the bird to our allies in Polnd and elsewhere; nothing has come good of his globetrotting. He can't even get an Olympics with Oprah's help! Iran is laughint at us, continuing to build up nuke techonology. North Korea ignores us unless a Clinton photo op is promised. Don't just take it from me. Check this out from the WSJ:

'He talks too much," a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.

He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.

He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not "unclenched their fist," nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.
There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can't journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies—he has already done that. He can't journey to Cairo to tell the fabled "Arab street" that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands—he has already done that as well. He can't tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam—he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again.

It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America's decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.

Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn't seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that's reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.

Damn, and Barry worked so hard to pronounce it Pahhh-kee-stahn.

We had once taken to the foreign world that quintessential American difference—the belief in liberty, a needed innocence to play off against the settled and complacent ways of older nations. The Obama approach is different.

Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.

Right here is proof Obama is not a Muslim, he doesn't know how they think over there. So see, he isn't a Muslim. But, such an abject ignorance of the psychology of a region belies a certain arrogance about the certainty of one's own self loathing for one's own country, does it not? But let's look at Iran....

Mr. Obama could not make up his mind: He was at one with "the people" and with the rulers who held them in subjugation. The people of Iran who took to the streets this past summer were betrayed by this hapless diplomacy—Mr. Obama was out to "engage" the terrible rulers that millions of Iranians were determined to be rid of.

On Nov. 4, on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, the embattled reformers, again in the streets, posed an embarrassing dilemma for American diplomacy: "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them," they chanted. By not responding to these cries and continuing to "engage" Tehran's murderous regime, his choice was made clear. It wasn't one of American diplomacy's finest moments.

It is obvious that when it comes to expanding liberty, Obama will not even vote present.

Mr. Obama has himself to blame for the disarray of his foreign policy. American arms had won a decent outcome in Iraq, but Mr. Obama would not claim it—it was his predecessor's war. Vigilance had kept the American homeland safe from terrorist attacks for seven long years under his predecessors, but he could never grant Bush policies the honor and credit they deserved. He had declared Afghanistan a war of necessity, but he seems to have his eye on the road out even as he is set to announce a troop increase

Check out the whole thing....

Nuke Power for Iran? Yes; Nuke Power for USA? No

What?

Did President Obama really say it was alright for Iran to have nuclear power while he and his cohorts on the left are denying that same source to Americans?

It sure looks that way to me...

Nevermind that this position pretty much throws Israel under the bus, Obama is willing to let Iran have nuclear power while denying Americans the opportunity for a lower energy bill. Iran which is flush with oil has energy concerns and needs nuclear power? Yet, America which has a real concern regarding energy (thanks to the Democrats) does not need nuclear power? I'm just asking...

But he and the Democrats are for the little guy... Hey! Ahmadinejad is a little guy, I guess...

Republicans have fought for Americans’ right to bear arms and now Obama and the Democrats are fighting for Iran’s right to bear nuclear arms. How could this go wrong?

Iran, Venezuela and Oil: One Good Thing About the Economic "Crisis"

Our enemies are worried. Iran and Venezuela both are concerned as oil continues to fall. Iran had a special meeting. Here is the skinny:

Iranian leadership, however, view the decline in the price of oil with great concern. Speaking at the Second International Gas Conference in Tehran, a gathering that includes leading oil and gas producers, Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari called on OPEC members to stabilize prices at over $100 a barrel. “A price of US$100 and below is not suitable for anybody, neither oil producers nor oil consumers… OPEC members need to respect their output quota to avoid a worsening of the oversupply.”

At this point, Iran stands alone in its concern over the current price level for oil. But what is there motive? Is it simple greed - the higher the price of oil, the greater the revenues? To an extent, greed does play a role. However, there seems to be real fiscal concerns at hand for the Islamic Republic. Mohsin Khan, Director of Middle East and Central Asia at the International Monetary Fund, argues,

Iran’s break-even price is $90 a barrel, and that is a big issue in Iran right now. … If prices dip below $90 a barrel, and we have seen it touch $89 earlier this week, then they would have to tighten their public expenditure policy, and probably cut subsidies, which would be an issue for the government there – the public would not be content.
For other oil producing nations, Khan believes break-even threshold is much lower. “The UAE will have a fiscal balance at an oil price of $23, if it goes below they would run a deficit. For Qatar, the break-even price is $24 a barrel.” Saudi Arabia’s standard of $49 a barrel is the highest amongst the Gulf Cooperation Council countries on account of its high spending “on a lot of projects right now, and oil money is used to fund these projects.”

Iran’s struggling economy might not be able to sustain a prolonged period of low oil prices. The economy is the primary issue in the upcoming presidential elections and the political factions are fractured over how to fix it. Seeing the strain that subsidies have put on his inflated budget, President Ahmadinejad is considering abolishing many of them - a move that could cause inflation to spike if not done slowly and cautiously (the official inflation number is already at 26%).

So, maybe one good thing that could happen is the people finally rise up against the mullahs and join civilization. Notice how the mullahs keep the people happy with subsidies? Sound familiar? Sounds like the Obama economic plan...Interesting, don't you think?

Hugo and Venezuela are getting worried, also:

The Mideast worries and talks about reducing output, but the one with the most reason to worry is Hugo Chavez. No one, and I mean not one single petty tyrant in all the oil-financed tyrannies in the world, is as dependent on oil revenues to maintain himself in power. Venezuela relies on oil income for more than 40 percent of its budget and Chavez squanders every day millions of dollars of oil revenues while oil production has fallen by a quarter since he won power.

The official rate of inflation is 22.5 - the highest in Latin America. However, inflation in some sectors, such as food, is 50%. The Venezuelan economy is in tatters now and will get a lot worse.

And even Putin is feeling the pinch.

There is always a bright side, and this may be our bright side to these troubling economic times.

Biden Said Give Iran Mullahs Money After 9/11 and other follies of Foreign Relations

Is this the type of foreign policy leadership we need? I think not:

Finally, were it not for the national spotlight on his Iraq farrago, Biden would be best known for his relentless appeasement of Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of jihadist terror. Along with top members of Clinton’s inner circle, Biden was in the vanguard of foreign-affairs “engagement” enthusiasts who got goo-goo eyes in 1997 when the Islamic Republic’s then-president, Mohammed Khatami, proposed a “dialogue between civilizations.” The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps had only recently assisted Hezbollah in bombing the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia, murdering 19 members of the U.S. Air Force. And Iran was busily pursuing its nuclear aspirations. Still, as American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin recounts, Biden stubbornly pushed for cultivating Iranian “reformers” and encouraging trade and dialogue to bring the mullahs around. The European Union followed just such advice, increasing trade threefold with Iran, which promptly diverted 70 percent of the haul to its military and nuclear programs. The mullahs responded to this sensitive diplomacy by installing as their president a hardliner, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is more clearly reflective of the “Death to America” philosophy.
As the Iranians laughed all the way to the bank and continued killing Americans in Iraq, Congress voted last year to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization, a move that imposes economic sanctions. Only 22 senators opposed that designation; Biden and Obama were prominent among them. That called to mind the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. As policymakers considered potential responses to the attacks, Biden had a brainstorm. “Seems to me,” he told Foreign Relations staffers, that “this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran.”

Yes, give them appeasement....that worked so well for Neville Chamberlain, now didn't it? This is not the foreign policy experience one should brag about...but wait, there is more:

Biden is first and foremost a combative partisan, but he modulates his left-wing orientation in accordance with public opinion, following the polls slavishly when exigencies like 9/11 arise.

When a Democrat is in the White House, Biden’s internationalist moralism proves remarkably flexible. During the Carter administration, Biden’s easy cynicism made an impression on the Soviets. When Biden traveled to Moscow in 1979 for discussions about the SALT II treaty, Vadim Zagladin, deputy head of the Central Committee’s International Department, noted in a memo (later obtained by the dissident Vladimir Bukovsky) that Biden and his companion, Sen. Richard Lugar, had not raised human-rights concerns — the duo said they didn’t wish “to spoil the atmosphere with problems which are bound to cause distrust in our relations.” “Unofficially,” Zagladin recounted, the senators “were not so much concerned with solving a problem of this or that particular citizen as with showing to the American public that they do care for ‘human rights.’ . . . In other words, the collocutors directly admitted that what is happening is a kind of a show, that they absolutely don’t care for the fate of most so-called dissidents.”

Is this someone who will be able to go against Putin? I think not...But wait:

But if Iraq is the topic, a more interesting debate would pit Biden against . . . Biden. By comparison, John Kerry is a paragon of consistency: Biden was not merely for the Iraq War before he was against it; he was also against it before he was for it.

As President George H. W. Bush launched the 1991 Gulf War to drive Saddam Hussein’s marauding army out of Kuwait, Biden argued passionately against doing so — a position he later admitted was a mistake. He subsequently morphed from Iraq dove to Iraq hawk, a transformation that happened to coincide with the election of a Democratic administration. In 1993, when Bill Clinton ordered a cruise-missile attack on an empty Iraqi intelligence headquarters in response to Saddam’s assassination plot against Bush, Biden was a staunch supporter. By early 1998, the born-again hawk was imploring Clinton to take military action against Iraq. Worried about the dictator’s “ability to produce the most deadly weapons known to mankind,” Biden warned that, “left unchecked, Saddam Hussein would in short order be in a position to threaten and blackmail our regional allies, our troops, and, indeed, our nation.”

Though he now repeats the Left’s charge that the Bush administration willfully misconstrued intelligence coming out of Iraq, the Clinton-era Biden dismissed the very notion that there existed any reliable intelligence on Baghdad’s arsenal. “As long as Saddam’s at the helm,” he inveighed during a September 1998 hearing, “there is no reasonable prospect [that] . . . any . . . inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out . . . the entirety of Saddam’s [WMD] program.” Along with John McCain, Biden agitated for the Iraq Liberation Act, which made seeking regime change in Baghdad the policy of the United States. And in December 1998, the Delaware Democrat strongly backed Operation Desert Fox, in which Clinton ordered four days of bombing attacks without congressional authorization or Security Council approval.

By late 2001, a Republican was in the White House and post-9/11 polls reflected public demand for robust action against terrorists and rogue states. Biden comfortably reprised his Iraq saber-rattling. Al-Qaeda’s atrocities convinced him that the assurance of superpower retaliation was no longer sufficient to discourage America’s enemies. It didn’t matter to him that Iraq was not an imminent threat; Biden saw the economic sanctions faltering, presumed Iraq’s weapons programs remained viable, and argued that U.N. resolutions should be strictly enforced. “If we wait for the danger from Saddam to become clear,” he reasoned, “it could be too late.”

By the summer of 2002, Biden was publicly stating that war with Iraq was a virtual certainty — tracking his 1998 assertion that “the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone . . . . It’s going to require guys . . . in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking Saddam down.” Countering critics of his October 2002 pro-war vote, he insisted, “I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security.
. . . [Saddam Hussein] possesses chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons.” Though Biden predicted a lengthy, difficult battle, he stressed the imperative of persevering: “We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”

Biden hedged his bets, of course, co-sponsoring a failed resolution that would have called on the administration to exhaust all diplomatic options. Biden always favors exhausting all diplomatic options — chatter, after all, is inexhaustible, a proposition the loquacious senator often is at pains to prove. The resolution was a bid for wiggle room — take credit for success but second-guess if things get tough before that “decade after” rolls around. Still, as the March 2003 invasion neared, Biden was adamant: “The choice between war and peace is Saddam’s. The choice between relevance and irrelevance is the U.N. Security Council’s.”

POLICY OF CONVENIENCE
For all Biden’s twaddle about doctrines and concepts, there is a simple technique for divining this foreign-policy solon’s bobs and weaves: Consult the polls and the calendar. His opposition to the Gulf War was an example of Democrats’ post-Vietnam squeamishness about military actions abroad. His 1998 hawkishness dovetailed with growing public anger after the U.S. embassies in East Africa were bombed by bin Laden, in whose activities the Clinton administration suggested Iraq was complicit. Post-9/11, Biden was a top adviser to Senator Kerry’s campaign. Convinced that Democrats could not win unless the public believed they took national security seriously, he pushed his reluctant candidate to talk tougher. Over time, Iraq became more difficult and the expected caches of WMD failed to materialize, but as long as the mission enjoyed public support, Biden maintained that Saddam had been both a long- and a short-term threat to the United States, as well as an “extreme danger to the world.” Even a year after the 2004 election — which, the senator told the The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Goldberg, the Democrats lost because voters decided Bush was strong and Kerry weak — Biden declared, “The decision to go to war was the right one.” The ensuing problems, he elaborated, stemmed from the conduct of the mission, not the mission itself.

But change, we now know, was in the air. Howard Dean, who had risen from the fever swamps to the cusp of wresting the nomination from Kerry, was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Biden was eyeing a presidential run of his own. Though he scoffed that “no goddam chairman’s ever made a difference in the history of the Democratic party,” Biden couldn’t help but appreciate the declaration of MoveOn.org’s Eli Pariser: “It’s our party. We bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.” He couldn’t help but notice the elevation of Barack Obama. By the fortuity of not being in the Senate in 2002, Obama had been spared the need to cover himself and his party with a vote for war. As an inconsequential state legislator from an ultra-Left Chicago district, Obama could afford to oppose the invasion of Iraq. And now that opposition was gaining him traction.

The result was a one-eighty that would have been comical if the stakes hadn’t been so high. The Foreign Relations chairman turned against the war with a vengeance, clinging to the bogus narrative that congressional Democrats had been gulled by the administration’s “manipulation of intelligence” — intelligence Biden had reviewed himself. Biden characterized that intelligence as worthless because of Saddam’s duplicity, and superfluous because “everyone in the world thought [Saddam] had [WMD]. The weapons inspectors said he had them.” After years of calling for a surge in U.S. forces to quell the post-invasion insurgency, Biden bitterly opposed the surge once Bush ordered it in late 2006 — when the Democrats’ presidential debates were on the horizon. At a January 2007 hearing, he thundered: “Why do we want to stop the surge? We don’t agree with the mission.” Of course “the mission,” defeating al-Qaeda and securing Iraq for “the long haul,” was the same one Biden had championed for years.

With this transformation, Biden has managed an unlikely feat: He has been just as wrong about Iraq this time around as he was in 1991. Though Biden maintained that the surge would fail (“Sending additional troops to Baghdad will place more Americans in harm’s way with little prospect for success”), even Obama today grudgingly concedes it has “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

With similar gloom, Biden predicted the 2005 Iraqi elections were “going to be ugly,” marred by violence. Instead they went off smoothly. By late 2006, Biden concluded that Sunni-dominated Anbar province had “morphed into an indigenous jihadist movement” and that “no number of troops can solve the sectarian problem and we don’t have enough troops to definitively deal with the jihadist threat.” In reality, the jihadist movement was not indigenous and, bolstered by the surge’s modest increase in U.S. forces, Anbaris rejected al-Qaeda. Anbar is now one of the war’s greatest triumphs: The enemy has been vanquished and control of the province has just been turned over to the Iraqi government.

These developments underscore the folly of Biden’s ballyhooed 2006 proposal for a soft partition of Iraq into a loose federation of three ethno-sectarian enclaves. Now rendered irrelevant by events, the gambit — premised on an ill-conceived understanding of Iraq’s demographics and a disregard for its constitution — promised a chaotic descent into civil war, massive population displacements, and the possibility of luring Turkey and Saudi Arabia into a conflict that already includes Iran and Syria. Biden’s plan did succeed, however, in uniting Iraqis: Revulsion for the proposal cut across the ethno-sectarian divide.

And now, the dénouement. Well into 2005, Biden pronounced that timetables for a U.S. withdrawal would be a “gigantic mistake.” The imposition of arbitrary deadlines, Biden assured his fellow experts at the Brookings Institution, would “encourage our enemies to wait us out,” cause Iraq to “degenerate quickly in the sectarian violence,” and result in a debacle reminiscent of “Lebanon in 1985, and God knows where it goes from there.” But — surprise! — Biden then had another epiphany. He now sees the wisdom of withdrawal timelines, such as those urged by his running mate, whom he previously dismissed as too green for the heady arena of foreign affairs.

Playing politics with national and global security...this is foreign policy experience we need right now? I think not.

Hey Barry, Guess What Else that Surge You Opposed Has Achieved?

Mookie Al Sadr is giving up. Yep, the Mahdi army is goin to lay down arms:

Good news out of Iraq is becoming almost a daily event: In just the past week, we learned that U.S. combat fatalities (five) dropped in July to a low for the war, that key leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq have fled to the Pakistani hinterland, that troop deployments will soon be cut to 12 months from 15, and that Washington and Baghdad are close to concluding a status-of-forces agreement. Now this: Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr plans to announce Friday that he will disarm his Mahdi Army, which was raining mortars on Baghdad's Green Zone as recently as April. Coupled with the near-total defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, this means the U.S. no longer faces any significant organized military foe in the country. It also marks a major setback for Iran, which had used the Mahdi Army as one of its primary vehicles for extending its influence in Iraq

See, this was done by our American soldiers. It was not the confluence of other events and we just got lucky. It is happening BECAUSE of the SURGE, not in spite of it. But don't tell that to the Obamessiah and his acolytes, who are even now writing the Gospels of ABC, NBC, et. al. It is truly disgusting when facts fly in the face of this clown's spew and all the media can do is get out the intern kneepads. Do you think this would have been done by sitting down and having tea? I think not.

Barry was wrong about the Surge, but he refuses to admit it. No, instead he obfuscates and flips and flops and sounds more like a boob than a leader.

What the Iran Article Cited By Rush May Really Mean...

We've been having an ongoing discussion about the statement Rush Limbaugh made regarding this article about Reagan and Iran. Surfer and Matt and myself have been going over what it means vis a vis Beirut and such, but I think it harbors another more important thought:

In his memoirs, Rafsanjani makes it clear that without the disastrous naval battle and the downing of the Iran Air jet, Khomeini would not have agreed to end a war that had already claimed a million Iranian and Iraqi lives.

The reason was that Khomeini was leader of a regime that lacked adequate mechanisms for self-restraint. He was the driver of a vehicle with no clutch or reverse-gear, let alone a brake, and thus was doomed to speed ahead until it hit something hard.

Interestingly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used a similar image recently when he committed the regime to a no-compromise position on the nuclear issue. "This train has no reverse-gear and no brakes," he said.

Khomeini could have ended the war with Iraq years earlier, obtaining decent terms for Iran. He did not because the extremist nature of his regime made it impossible to even contemplate the fact that realism, prudence and compromise are key elements of good leadership.

Khomeini could not have ended the war. He needed Reagan to do it for him. If the Islamic Republic is a train without a reverse-gear and brakes, it does not need a conductor. It could race ahead until it hits something hard on its way.

The writer, an Iranian, I guess is thinking that the only way to stop Iran is for "something hard" to hit it on its way. What is that going to be? The US is cleaning up the UN's mess in Iraq. We are cleaning up Russia's mess in Afghanistan. Isn't it about time the "world body" did something? Wait, that would imply they have a spine.

I think the writer is forecasting that we will come to blows with Iran, or someone (maybe Israel?) will and only that will be the stopping point for the nuclear ambitions. I found the piece interesting, and was a real thought provoker.

"Death to AhmadinejadI'mADegenerate?"

Yes, it is true. There were crowds of youth and others shouting death to the Iranian Leader. From Breitbart:

Many Iranian youths rallied in streets across the country, shouting "Death to Ahmadinejad," in celebrations marking the end of the Persian calendar year.

The last Wednesday of the Persian calendar is celebrated as the Fire Festival in Iran, with bonfires and firecrackers marking the occasion.

In the western city of Ahvaz, angry mobs declared "Freedom is our legitimate right" while demonstrators in the western city of Sanandaj shouted "Death to (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad," Ynetnews reported Wednesday.

Hmm...the hushed whispers of freedom occaisionally coming up to shouts....if only they could get rid of the evil fool and the mullahs and truly take freedom as their legitimate right....

Why Didn't Reagan Respond to Beirut Bombing?

Via the Rush Limbaugh email recap:

Trick liberal Open Line Friday Question: Why didn't Reagan respond to the Beirut bombing? Answer: He sunk Iran's Navy -- in a single afternoon.

This is some forgotten history that needs to be remembered...

Introducing Tehran Tom...

AP News Alert:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) Iran says video released by the Pentagon showing Iranian Revolutionary Guards boats confronting U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz was "fabricated," state-run television reports.

Baghdad Bob couldn't have said it better if he tried...

Bush's Legacy

George W. Bush is doing what every second term president does: try to get the Palestinians and the Israelis to break bread, smoke a little peyote, and sing a verse or two of "Kumbaya."

The AP News report:

WASHINGTON (AP) The State Department has announced that the U.S. will host a Middle East peace conference at Annapolis, Md., on Nov. 27.

This has not worked before and it will not work now. When the Palestinians are tired of killing and dying, then there will be peace. But until Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are dealt with, that will NEVER happen... Call me crazy, but the only way this problem gets fixed is if Islamofascism dies and these regimes start working for peace in earnest.

President Bush need not worry about his legacy...that was solidified on September 11th, 2001.

Iran Update

Two AP News Alerts:

VIENNA, Asustrai (AP) The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog suggests Iran has told the truth about key aspects of its past nuclear activities while confirming that Tehran continues to defy the Security Council on uranium enrichment.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) Iran's top nuclear negotiator says the U.N. nuclear watchdog report proves Tehran is cooperating and that it would be "wrong" to pursue further sanctions.

The UN has, once again, tried to have it both ways. And, once again, we're seeing a rogue regime use this institution to delay action that we all know need to be taken in order to resolve this situation peacefully. All the UN is doing here is guaranteeing more war by refusing to deal with these threats up front.

Ahmidenejad's True Colors Come Out...

Don't believe the hype. When Mahmoud I'mADegenerate visited Columbia U and spoke at the UN, he talked of how "we love all people, we love the Jewish people, and there are Jews living with security in Iran," he was lying. There is an old understanding in the MidEast. When a leader speaks to others, he usually is telling them what he wants them to hear. When he speaks to his own people, the truth comes out. Well, here is the truth on Iran:

TEHRAN, Oct. 5 (UPI) -- Iran’s outspoken president marked Quds Day with a public call for the entire population of Israel to be deported to Alaska or Canada.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech Israel should exist far away from the Islamic world, and called on Europe and the United States to use its foreign aid money to set up a new Israel in their own backyard.

Yes, forced moving of the Jews to Canada or Alaska is having respect for them. Don't trust this animal or his words.

Petraeus Turns Up Heat on Iran

General David Petraeus, American Hero and commander of the forces in Iraq, is bringing his words to bear on Iran and its "ambassador." Here is the story from FoxNews:

Gen. David Petraeus laid further blame on Iran for violence in Iraq, charging that Tehran's ambassador to Baghdad was once a member of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards force, Reuters news service reported Sunday.

Petraeus added that Iran has been aiding Iraqi rebels with training and gifts of high-powered weaponry.

"They are responsible for providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some cases the direction for operations that have indeed killed U.S. soldiers," Petraeus said.

Without citing any specific intelligence, Petraeus labeled Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, Iran's envoy to Baghdad, as a former member of the Revolutionary Guards Quds force.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry dismissed the “baseless” accusations, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency.

"They repeatedly link those arrested or killed in the bombardments with the Quds force. If they can, they announce names of those people or hand over the names to the Islamic Republic of Iran," Mohammad-Ali Hosseini told IRNA.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps has been under intense scrutiny by U.S. officials. In August, President Bush signed an executive order branding them as a “specially designated global terrorist.”

What do you want to bet moveon.org and the MSM take Iran's side? Of course, this is not a surprise to anyone who is rational and knows Iran's history and the views of its psycho leader.