Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

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....

Friday, February 06, 2009

VIDEO: Rep. Cantor in Iraq

Boehner in Iraq

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) was in Iraq today, leading a six-member congressional delegation to the country. The trip comes just a week after provincial elections were held successfully and without significant violence. Boehner issued the following statement on the delegation visit:

“American troops have made remarkable progress in Iraq under the leadership of General Petraeus and General Odierno and our delegation was eager to witness this progress firsthand, particularly after the recent provincial elections. As more of our troops return home and the Iraqi government assumes more control of its country, the progress is undeniable and I commend the resolve, commitment and sacrifice shown by our military forces each and every day.

“Even with our success, there is much more work to be done. As General Odierno and Ambassador Crocker reminded us, we have made significant progress but the gains created by the surge and the political reconciliation process are fragile and reversible. As stability in the region increases, it is imperative that officials in Washington listen to our commanders on the ground on how best to complete our mission while also ensuring the safety and success of our military forces. Our troops in Iraq are returning home after victory rather than defeat, and they deserve to have every tool they need to successfully finish the job. As many of our troops are deployed to Afghanistan, it must not come at the cost of the hard-fought success and stability that has been gained in Iraq.”
Photo courtesy of Rep. Boehner's office.

Friday, December 05, 2008

They Told Me That If the Wrong Guy Won, We Would Be In Iraq for 100 Years....

Looks like they were right.....hope/change, everybody.....LOL...
From the WSJ:
Barack Obama was elected president a month ago and does not take office for another 6½ weeks. But his most fervent supporters already have reason to be disappointed in him. Witness the headline of a "news analysis" in today's New York Times: "Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality."

"As he moves closer to the White House," the Times reveals, "President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months." That itself is a big "if," as the Times acknowledges:

That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000--and some say as high as 70,000--for a substantial time even beyond 2011.We may be in Iraq for a hundred years! The Times notes that "there always was a tension, if not a bit of a contradiction, in the two parts of Mr. Obama's campaign platform to 'end the war' by withdrawing all combat troops by May 2010":

To be sure, Mr. Obama was careful to say that the drawdowns he was promising included only combat troops. But supporters who keyed on the language of ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing home all of the troops.Hmm, here is what the Times editorial page said about the subject when it endorsed Obama back in October:

The unnecessary and staggeringly costly war in Iraq must be ended as quickly and responsibly as possible.While Iraq's leaders insist on a swift drawdown of American troops and a deadline for the end of the occupation, Mr. McCain is still talking about some ill-defined "victory." As a result, he has offered no real plan for extracting American troops and limiting any further damage to Iraq and its neighbors.Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq, and he has presented a military and diplomatic plan for withdrawing American forces. Mr. Obama also has correctly warned that until the Pentagon starts pulling troops out of Iraq, there will not be enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.It is awfully generous of the Times to forgive Obama's supporters for believing what they read in the Times.


Hmmm...what about Change we can believe in? What about we can change the world? Oh wait, there is the problem of reality...See, folks, that is the difference between children and adults....Our little manchild Obama may be starting to grow up....a shame he snookered so many other children with promises of "give peace a chance" and "no war for oil." See what happens, dear ones, when you believe rhetoric over record? Wait a minute, this guy had no record....my bad.....

Friday, October 03, 2008

Biden on Afghanistan: Fuzzy Math...

Remember Al Gore's fuzzy math? It appears slow Joe and Obama are suffering from the same issue. For example, on Afghanistan, Joe Biden said THREE TIMES that :
We have spent more in 3 weeks in Iraq than we did in the last 6 years in Afghanistan"

However, what about this CRS report which shows the REAL NUMBERS:
CRS Report for Congress

The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War
on Terror Operations Since 9/11

Covers FY2001 - FY2009
Afghanistan war $172 billion (8 yrs)
Iraq war $653 billion (6 years)

Let's just take average / year / week

AF: $21.5 billion / yr
IR: $109 billion / yr

3 weeks of IR $6.3 billion
7 years of AF $150.5 billion


Hmmmm....someone do the math...

Western Standard has this to say:
Biden is telling absurd lies about Afghanistan tonight. In particular, he's repeatedly claimed that "we've spent less in Afghanistan in seven years than we spend in a month in Iraq."
According to the Congressional Research Service, spending on the war in Afghanistan since 2001 has been $172 Billion. Spending in Iraq is, as the Democrats repeatedly mention, a little under $10 Billion a month.

In other words, Biden's number is off by, oh, something like 2000%. Perhaps Obama's Sub-Committee ought to have held some hearings on Afghanistan after all.

As a side note, amazingly, Biden just fell apart on foreign policy there. Did he really promise that Obama would launch a war in Darfur? Never mind his whole mess of an answer on his vote for the Iraq War. Does anyone think that it's really even remotely credible that Joe Biden voted to give George Bush the authority to go to war because he thought he wouldn't use it. If Joe Biden did that, he's among the stupidest men alive.


Hearings? What? I am sorry...I am only present...besides, I am too busy campaigning...sincerely, Barry O.

CBS New Bimbo Logan Steals Iraq "souvenirs"

CBS adulterous newsbimbo Lara Logan may be in hot water. It appears she has been caught sneaking "mementos" from Iraq. I guess a broken marriage wasn't enough for her. From the NY Post:
CBS news hottie Lara Logan could be in hot water for swiping souvenirs from the wreckage of bombed-out Baghdad.

In a video profile of the "60 Minutes" star called "Lara Logan's Spoils of War," mementos from Iraq and Afghanistan are shown in her Washington office.

PHOTOS: Lara Logan

"The prize pieces are . . . pre-Iraq invasion portraits of Saddam Hussein. In one [he's] shown in military fatigues. Logan told us she found it in pieces, in the ruins of the Olympic committee building after it was bombed," reports Marisa Guthrie of Broadcasting & Cable, the media industry publication that produced the online piece.

"A second portrait recovered from the ruins of a shelled palace in Baghdad shows a paternal Saddam surrounded by a group of adoring children, Hovering above the scene is the disembodied head of a stern-looking elderly woman . . . which Logan says is Saddam's mother."

Taking such items out of the country is considered theft under a federal provision designed to protect Iraqi heritage. One former Fox News engineer has already been prosecuted and placed on probation for smuggling paintings from Iraqi palaces. Other journos have been warned.

"Why is it OK for Lara Logan to be displaying a few of those same kind of items framed on her office walls at CBS News and have public media stories done about them without any US Customs people paying attention?" asks ERSnews.com, a muckraking media Web site.

A rep for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement told us the agency was looking into it. Logan refused to speak with us. A CBS News flack sniffed, "Sorry, but this one's not worthy of a comment."

Logan, a former swimsuit model who is CBS' chief foreign affairs correspondent, made headlines this year when a CNN reporter and a US defense contractor in Iraq got into a brawl over her. The contractor impregnated Logan, who is due to give birth in January.


So a kid from an adulterous affair wasn't enough? Now she is stealing from the Iraqi people. You stay classy, newsbimbo...

Thursday, October 02, 2008

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.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Obama Trying to Manipulate Iraq Drawdown for Political Gain

I thought he wanted to bring the troops home as soon as possible. Well, only if it doesn't hurt his chances at gaining election:
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Sounds like Barack wants to keep the issue alive to use as a tool to gain traction. Hmmmm....what does Barry have to say about this? Here is this interesting 'denial':
But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

In the face of resistance from Bush, the Democrat has long said that any such agreement must be reviewed by the US Congress as it would tie a future administration's hands on Iraq.

"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades," Morigi said.


However, Taferi fired back:

Obama also told NBC: "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made, but I think the only way to assure that is to make sure that there is strong bipartisan support, that Congress is involved, that the American people know the outlines of this agreement.

"And my concern is that if the Bush administration negotiates, as it currently has, and given that we're entering into the heat of political season, that we're probably better off not trying to complete a hard-and-fast agreement before the next administration takes office, but I think obviously these conversations have to continue.

"As I said, my No. 1 priority is making sure that we don' t have a situation in which US troops on the ground are somehow vulnerable to, are made more vulnerable, because there is a lack of a clear mandate."

This confirms precisely what I suggested in my article: Obama preferred to have no agreement on US troop withdrawals until a new administration took office in Washington.

Obama has changed position on another key issue. In the NBC report, he pretends that US troops in Iraq do not have a "clear mandate." Now, however, he admits that there is a clear mandate from the UN Security Council and that he'd have no objection to extending it pending a bilateral Iraq-US agreement. . . .

Contrary to what Obama and his campaign have said, Iraqi officials insist that at no point in his talks in Washington and Baghdad did Obama make a distinction between SOFA and SFA when he advised them to wait for the next American administration.

The real news I see in the Obama statement is that there may be an encouraging evolution in his position on Iraq: The "rebuttal" shows that the senator no longer shares his party leadership's belief that the United States has lost the war in Iraq.


So, Barry, do you disagree with Senate Majority Leader Reid that the Iraq war is lost? Do you want an agreement to bring troops home or not? Which is it? Who is the real Barack Obama and where does he stand?

Friday, September 05, 2008

Hey Obama, A Simple "I Was Wrong" Would Suffice...

But wait, he is a lib Dem, so he can't admit he was wrong. However, he does say this:
I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

So, are you for it after you were against it? Were you against it before you were for it but after you were against it? What is it with these people?

As Glenn Reynolds says:
Actually, I think it succeeded in ways that John McCain anticipated. And General Petraeus, who was mocked by Obama-supporting MoveOn as "General Betrayus."


Indeed.....

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

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.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

What Winning a War Looks Like

Let's get the skinny straight from a pair of boots on the ground over at Armed And Curious:
This is a different Iraq then the one I left two years ago in so many ways. I am constantly surprised this trip when something subtle points to such an obvious change. It is often only much later that you recognize the measure of what you have witnessed and often it’s the absence of things such as explosions and small arms fire in the distance that point to the progress having been made.



Then there are times when the change hits you across the forehead like a 2x4. Yesterday I found inspiration in the tears of joy on hundreds of faces at the graduation for the Iraqi Military Academy at Rustimiyah as 252 young men graduated from the one year course of instruction and were commissioned as 2nd Lieutenants in the Iraqi Army and Air Force.



Go read the whole thing...God bless him, God bless our troops, God bless the Iraqi people, and God bless America.

Sunday, July 06, 2008

Change that Worked, and that We Can Believe in...VETS FOR FREEDOM AD

Check out this great ad from Vets for Freedom, who are fighting the MSM and networks and are fighting to get this ad aired as part of an ad buy.



God bless our men and women serving...and their families....

What WMD's???

Remember when the rallying cry from the left was "Show me the WMDs?" Well, according to this story from the Assoicated (with terrorists) Press, the last of Saddam's uranium "yellow cake" just made port in Canada.

Where was this stuff? Surely it wasn't IN Iraq...
"Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq," said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
Well, I'll be...it was in Iraq. Where our friends on the left said there were no WMD programs at all!

I know, I know...we stopped the flow of the chocolate rivers with the gumdrop trees on their shores in war for oil. Of course, the reality is that Saddam was an evil tyrant who abused his people and had the ambitions of becoming a nuclear power. That he'd use biological weapons on his own people is evidence enough for me...

Anyway, I just thought I'd take a moment to illustrate that once again, the left is wrong on yet another issue.

7/13 UPDATE: I've received some criticism from several folks that I think requires some clarification on my part because some of it is fair and some of it isn't.

One area which I think my critics have gotten this story wrong is the supposed fact that this yellowcake was under IAEA seal since prior to the invasion. According to this AFP piece [HT: Sticks and Stones], the 550 metric tons of uranium yellow cake was turned over to the IAEA after it was discovered by US troops AFTER the invasion.
The yellow cake was discovered by US troops after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility south of Baghdad, and was placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Near as I can tell, that means that this material was not previously known about nor was it under IAEA watch.

The fair piece of criticism comes from my first sentence. Yellowcake, by itself, isn't a weapon. I should have refined the argument to center around the WMD programs which Saddam had and not the weapons themselves. I left out a word and the criticism is fair on that point.

However, the notion that the lack of WMD's somehow de-legitimizes the war in some way is not a position that I accept. WMD's were not the sole justification for going to war, but that argument did become the centerpiece for doing so.

The presence of the programs under Saddam's control that prompted the need for regime change and not the weapons themselves. In fact, it is the absence of the weapons themselves that makes the military option more available. Diplomacy had run its course after 12 years and 17 UN resolutions; it was vital for the region and American security interests, to shut down those programs for good.

This yellowcake could be “further enriched as fuel for nuclear weapons.” Even if it were true that this material was under the supposed watchful eye of the IAEA, why wasn't it destroyed or removed? We're supposed to trust El Baradei and the IAEA with it? There are plenty of reasons to suspect El Baradei's loyalty to non-proliferation including his promise to resign if Israel or the US should do his job for him and eliminate Iran's ambitions for a nuclear weapon.

While I don't think this find vindicates the Bush administration on the claim of stockpiles of WMD, it was a serious threat that should have been handled. Mock me for that if you want, but I'll sleep at night just fine thank you very much...

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Obama Flip-Flop Update

In today's WMD Blast, I thought we might have #31...but NAFTA had already been included in the original list. I have updated the entry to include the video that Red State dug up that further illustrates the point.

I also updated Flip-Flop #28: Withdrawal of Iraq to include further evidence provided by the Politico.

Check out the entire collection of Obama Flip-Flops by clicking here.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

For CBS Reporter, Iraq Was All About Getting Laid

This is absolutely disgusting and should reveal the lack of integrity, lack of actual reporting, done by the mainstream media. It makes me wonder how many other reporters are just hanging in the Green Zone waiting for a fax from moveon.org or Code Pink to report, rather than actually doing journalism, engaging in illicit sex on company time:
The "60 Minutes" reporter and former swimsuit model apparently courted two beaus while she was in Baghdad, and has been labeled a homewrecker for allegedly destroying the marriage of a civilian contractor there, sources said.

Passions got so hot in the combat zone that one of her lovers, Joe Burkett, brawled in a Baghdad "safe house" with her other paramour, CNN war reporter Michael Ware, a source said.

The wife of Burkett, a US Embassy worker, claims the sultry 37-year-old correspondent seduced him while bullets flew overhead.

Burkett's wife, Kimberly, also accuses Logan of teaming up with him to take her 3-year-old daughter away, according to the source.

A close pal of Logan, who confirmed the allegations to The Post, said Burkett's marriage to Kimberly was already finished six months before they sparked up a relationship.

"She is not the cause of their divorce," the friend told The Post yesterday.

"It was going to happen."

The pal also said Logan was particularly hurt by the comments because she had met Kimberly Burkett and thought the two were "friendly."

Kimberly filed for divorce from her husband in January in a court near their hometown of Fredericksburg, Texas.

The husband, 36, and wife, 32, are now battling over custody of toddler Ashley.

So much for being on point about the story. When they should have been out reporting, they were getting laid. Absolutely disgusting.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

House Passes Troop Funding Bill

Yep, it's true, the US House of Representatives passed a troop funding bill. Again.

Republican Leader, my Congressman and a Great American -- John Boehner -- had this to say:
“This legislation represents a major victory for our troops and their families. The men and women in uniform protecting our nation in Iraq and Afghanistan have made remarkable progress against a determined enemy. This bill rightfully gives them the resources they need to continue their success and return home after victory, not defeat, and will help them and their families obtain a better education after they have completed their mission. Equally as important, the measure provides this critical funding without bogging it down with politically-motivated surrender language supported by Democratic leaders in Congress.

“The supplemental funding bill also represents a victory for American taxpayers. Not only were House Republicans successful in blocking the massive tax hike Democrats planned to include in the bill, but we also forced the Majority to remove some $8 billion in wasteful Washington spending added into the legislation by the Senate. Furthermore, the bill includes a responsible extension of unemployment benefits for those truly in need while protecting taxpayers by maintaining the 20-week work requirement in order for individuals to receive extended benefits.

“Under Gen. Petraeus’ strategy, our troops have made tremendous gains, and forcing them to reverse course – as most in the Democratic Majority want them to do – would be both irresponsible and reckless. I am pleased this troop funding bill keeps our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan on track so our troops have the resources they need to keep America safe.”
And here is a statement from OH-05's Rep. Bob Latta:
“This supplemental package ensures our troops have the necessary funding they need while in harms way without deadlines or withdraw requirements that could have an adverse affect on their mission. This bill also provides important educational G.I. benefits for our veterans when they return home from serving our country, and the bill further extends the benefits to their family members,” Latta said after tonight’s vote.

H.R. 2642 also contains unemployment insurance benefits that include a 20-week work requirement and a maximum extension of 13 weeks.

“In addition to the supplemental package, this bill provides important unemployment insurance that assists those who are truly in need,” Latta added.
Alright, so earlier today, I asked what we had to give up in order to get this bill done. This is a deal I can live with...

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Even War Critics Now Say Iraq not Only is NOT LOST, But is Winnable, and in fact, Being Won

Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack (no, not the former host of Celebrity Poker Showdown)gave a fascinating presentation. From Commentary:
Senior Brookings Fellows Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack gave a report today and entertained questions at a Brookings briefing on Iraq. It was the single most illuminating presentation I have witnessed on the status of Iraq and the potential way forward. Neither man can be accused of shilling for either the administration or John McCain for numerous reasons: both have been strong critics of the war and O’Hanlon opposed the war at the onset and still believes on balance it has not made us safer. I understand from Brookings that the entire transcript will be posted, but I offer some highlights below.

O’Hanlon explained that the last three months has been the “spring of the blossoming of Iraqi security forces” and Iraq is on an “impressive trajectory” although we have not yet “reached a stable end point.” He stressed that the 80% reduction in civilian violence was much better than he thought possible. He went through a detailed review of Basra, conceding that Maliki’s actions took the Americans by surprise and that in the first week things went poorly. However, by the second week two brigades were deployed from Al Anbar ( a testimony to massive improvements in Iraq security force logistics) and the mission was successful, allowing the Iraqi army and national police force to now control the streets of Basra.

Pollack echoed these observations, saying that “The headline was the emergence of Iraqi security forces.” He explained that the fundamental shift from Americans leading with Iraqis in support to Iraqis leading not just “hold” but “clear” operations is now “well underway.” He observes that sectarian divisions within the military are receding as mixed Sunni and Shia units have been successful in Basra and Mosul operations. He sees vast improvement in military leadership which “is one of the main reasons for improvement” in the security situation. He credits the military success with allowing for a “fundamental rearrangement” of Iraqi politics, observing that Maliki is now “flying high” with new found respect from Sunnis. The big picture take away, he says, it that having achieved remarkable success with major issues we now can begin to address “second and third order problems” such as insuring that military forces “stay in their lane” and do not subvert civilian leadership.

I asked O’Hanlon whether his previous criticism that Barack Obama was in denial about facts on the ground still stood. In a lengthy answer he and then Pollack avoided a partisan hit on Obama and I think revealed their true purpose: to inform the public and policy matters about the real situation in Iraq and allow Democrats to in essence climb back off the surge opposition policy limb they have crawled out on. (This is my description; they were quite tactful and even optimistic that this is a time when political leaders can reorient themselves to new facts.) Both indicated that it would be a mistake with critical provincial and national elections upcoming in 2008 and 2009 to begin an abrupt withdrawal in 2009. O’Hanlon offered that Democrats could take credit for having pressured Iraqis on a political front with the clear message that our presence would not be indefinite and that they should accept that “the good news is you may be able to leave earlier than proposed based on progress and not on defeat.”

Continuing with the answer, Pollack said that “our support is absolutely critical” in the short term and that “a massive withdrawal of U.S. forces in 2009 is not a good idea.”

O’Hanlon continued by praising McCain’s May 2008 speech that envisioned half the U.S. forces out by the end of his first term. He then said that there might be a “more optimistic” timetable which Obama could conceivably adopt whereby we would return to pre-surge levels this year, see a modest reduction in 2009 and further reductions to 50,000-70,00 troops in 2011.



The writer of the piece Jennifer Rubin goes on:
First, facts do matter and they are readily available to anyone who cares to find them. Second, the wisdom of the war and the mismanagement of the war for a number of years needs, for the sake of the country’s national security, to be separated from what we do now. As O’Hanlon said “we are where we are.” Third, Democrats can save face and claim credit for pressuring the Iraqi government if they are inclined to depart from their defeat at all costs approach. Fourth, no one should be Pollyannaish about the success to date but a better outcome than almost anyone would be imagined is now possible. Fifth, the military success of the surge followed by the remarkable progress of the Iraqi military has now empowered Maliki as a truly national political leader. That is what we had hoped when the surge began and that is the basis by which we can achieve a decent outcome and eventually draw down our troops. Finally, I am considerably less optimistic than O’Hanlon that there is now a political window during which the Democrats can be weaned from their defeatist perspective. I fear it would be too great a shift for Obama and the Democrats who have banked on failure. I hope I am wrong and pray that this is the beginning of a reconciliation with reality.

Jennifer, given the Dems continued rhetoric, I wouldn't hold my breath. Look at globaloney (thanks for that Tom Blumer), the War is lost, Bush Lied People died, etc., and you can continue to see that reality is not the Dems' strong suit. And don't even get me started on the Great Society.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Obama Willing to Meet with Iran, but Not Iraq or Petraeus

NRO's Jim Geraghty, writing for The Campaign Spot, has an interesting response from Team Obama worth noting:
Obama spokesman Bill Burton, responding to John McCain's suggestion that both he and Obama take a trip to Iraq in the near future:

"John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer."
Jim points out that Team Obama gives absolutely no indication that he is ready or willing to see the progress in Iraq before November.

Obama seems eager to surrender in Iraq and refuses to even discuss it with the general in charge there. I thought we were supposed to 'listen to the generals' but I guess that meant only the Generals For Surrender...

Is this the right kind of "leadership" for America? For Ohio? I don't think so...

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

We Had Better Close Club Gitmo

AP News Alert:
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) U.S. military says former Guantanamo prisoner carried out suicide bombing in Iraq
How did this happen? All of Club Gitmo's guests are the warmest and most humane people on the planet???