Posts with the tag 'Defeaticrats'
From The Hill:
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain on Sunday asserted that his Democratic rival’s positions on Iraq were politically motivated.
“Sen. Obama doesn’t understand,” the Arizona senator said regarding Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) opposition to the troop surge. “He doesn’t understand what’s at stake here, and he chose to take a political path that would have helped him get the nomination of his party.”
McCain added that, if the path that the Illinois senator advocated had been pursued, there “would have been chaos, genocide, increased Iranian influence, perhaps al Qaeda establishing a base again” in Iraq.
The GOP standard-bearer hopes that his foreign policy and military experience and support for the surge will help convince voters in November that he is the right choice to lead the country.
McCain, in an interview with ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” consistently hammered Obama on security-related issues and defended a remark he made earlier in which he said that the Democrat is willing to lose a war to win a political campaign.
The Arizona senator argued that, while he broke with President Bush and his party to demand that more troops should be sent to Iraq, Obama “made the decision [to oppose the surge], which was political, in order to help him get the nomination of his party.”
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who went on the trip to the Middle East with Obama, criticized the attacks on the Democrat and said McCain is “treading on some very thin ground here when he impugns motives and when we start to get into, ‘You’re less patriotic than me. I’m more patriotic’.”
Hagel, true to form for the anti-war people, is trying to say that any criticism of war criticism is an accusation of being unpatriotic, and thus beyond the pale. This bit of nonsense, I think, will not fly anymore - its clear that McCain does not impugn Obama’s patriotism - just his motivation and his judgement, both of which are highly questionable. For all we know Obama is deep down inside the most Yankee Doodle of all Dandies - what is at issue here is his manifestly wrong position on the troop surge and how that relates to his prospective ability to be President of the United States of America.
The anti-war point of view has been proven wrong from start to finish - it is wrong because it believes that war is just a misunderstanding which can be resolved by patient diplomacy. War, though, is usually the result of a very good understanding - especially on the part of the aggressor, who is usually convinced that his more aggressive nature is the result of inherent superiority. The so-called “peace movement” nearly added another charnel house to its record (for a more complete list of the peace movement’s victims, see my “20th Century Victims of Peace“) - but at the urging of Senator McCain, the calls for surrender by Obama and his Democrats were ignored, and victory has now been secured. And now it is Senator Obama who is seeking maximum personal advantage out of this.
First he used Iraq to wow the left, now he’s trying to use the victory in Iraq as a support for his withdrawal plan (updated, again and again as Obama needs to shift here and there on the political landscape) - he’s trying to have it both ways. Obama wants lefty support due to his anti-war rhetoric, and he wants center support for his call to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan…he’s a peaceful warmonger, I guess.
We can’t afford four years of a President who adjusts his views to his personal, political needs - we need a President who will take an action even when assured it will be unpopular and may, indeed, cost him the White House. Senator McCain is that man; lets keep Obama in the Senate where for the next four to eight years (or ten, if you ask Obama) he can learn from President McCain what it takes to hold the most powerful office in the world.
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Iraq, John McCain, Troop Surge
July 27th, 2008
Interesting opinion piece over at Opinion Journal:
A cry for help goes out from a city beleaguered by violence and fear: A beam of light flashed into the night sky, the dark symbol of a bat projected onto the surface of the racing clouds . . .
Oh, wait a minute. That’s not a bat, actually. In fact, when you trace the outline with your finger, it looks kind of like . . . a “W.”
There seems to me no question that the Batman film “The Dark Knight,” currently breaking every box office record in history, is at some level a paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war. Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.
And like W, Batman understands that there is no moral equivalence between a free society — in which people sometimes make the wrong choices — and a criminal sect bent on destruction. The former must be cherished even in its moments of folly; the latter must be hounded to the gates of Hell…
…Why is it then that left-wingers feel free to make their films direct and realistic, whereas Hollywood conservatives have to put on a mask in order to speak what they know to be the truth? Why is it, indeed, that the conservative values that power our defense — values like morality, faith, self-sacrifice and the nobility of fighting for the right — only appear in fantasy or comic-inspired films like “300,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Narnia,” “Spiderman 3″ and now “The Dark Knight”?
The moment filmmakers take on the problem of Islamic terrorism in realistic films, suddenly those values vanish. The good guys become indistinguishable from the bad guys, and we end up denigrating the very heroes who defend us. Why should this be?
The answers to these questions seem to me to be embedded in the story of “The Dark Knight” itself: Doing what’s right is hard, and speaking the truth is dangerous. Many have been abhorred for it, some killed, one crucified…
…When heroes arise who take those difficult duties on themselves, it is tempting for the rest of us to turn our backs on them, to vilify them in order to protect our own appearance of righteousness. We prosecute and execrate the violent soldier or the cruel interrogator in order to parade ourselves as paragons of the peaceful values they preserve. As Gary Oldman’s Commissioner Gordon says of the hated and hunted Batman, “He has to run away — because we have to chase him.”
Being a coward is, pro-tempore, easier than being a hero - being a coward only requires that one do nothing; being a hero requires that one act. Of course, failure to act can land you, eventually, in much worse trouble than the immediate risk of acting, but a coward can always rationalise away future risks if it gets him out of the particular spot he’s in. While those who act are those who make things happen (good or bad, depending on the actor), it is only those who act nobly who are subjected to the calumny of the cowards. To insult the efforts of a wicked man, you see, is to take a brave stance - so much easier to call Marines in Haditha cold-blooded killers than to take on the cold-blooded killers the Marines are fighting.
The dichotomy between President Bush and the man who wants to replace him cannot be more stark - Obama is lauded for doing nothing; Bush is condemned for doing something. What did Obama do to garner support which eventually awarded him the Democratic nomination? He spoke out against liberating Iraq before the liberation was attempted. What did President Bush do to earn the hatred of the left? He ordered the liberation not of Iraq, but of Afghanistan. Oh, I know - we’ve spent so much time on Iraq that it seems that Iraq triggered leftwing hatred of Bush…but if you think back on it, you’ll remember that the first “anti-war” campaign post-9/11 was to keep us out of Afghanistan…because the Taliban hadn’t attacked us, because we shouldn’t get into the middle of a civil war, because it is impossible to defeat a terrorist enemy on his own ground, because it would be a humanitarian catastrophe. It wasn’t Iraq; it was the fact that President Bush proposed to do something - that is the source of the hatred.
Had President Bush made a few heart-rending speeches and merely promised the full weight of American law enforcement, he would still be disliked on the left for various reasons, but the hatred wouldn’t be there because in such a response there is no challenge to the cowardly. The coward, being able to look at a mere indictment of Osama bin Laden, can take all sorts of exception with what President Bush did…heck, the coward could even say that invading would be better…but there is no challenge; no forcing of a choice. No contrast between right and wrong. Obama doesn’t challenge - he tells the cowards that they were right, that we shouldn’t have acted - that being afraid to confront evil is the smart thing to do. He tells the coward that he never has to shoulder a heavy burden - that the UN, EU and everyone else on God’s earth will take care of it, but he’ll never be asked to sacrifice, save perhaps in a higher tax bill.
President Bush looked at the rubble of the Pentagon and WTC and was filled with a terrible resolve - that this shall not stand, and that those who did it will be made incapable of doing it again. For a while there, the overwhelming majority was with him - but as hard decision followed hard decision the siren song of defeatism and cowardice took its toll until, now, President Bush is in many ways the most unpopular man in the United States. All too many just wish he’d go away and stop demanding of us a hard courage to face the difficult tasks. Millions who hate President Bush will want him again, if we’re ever attacked like 9/11 again…but for now, they just want him get out, and allow a coward to stroke the ego of cowards.
And the only thing which may prevent this unhappy outcome? Another man of courage - John McCain. We’ll see in November if there is a majority of Americans still in favor of doing what is right, rather than talking about what is right and acting like talking is doing.
Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Iraq, John McCain, liberal lies
July 25th, 2008
Might as well just mark down each Obama position and flip it over - from Byron York over at NRO’s The Corner:
The McCain campaign is pointing out that it was one year ago today, during a Democratic debate, that Barack Obama was asked the famous would-you-meet-Ahmadinejad-without-preconditions question. This was it:
QUESTION: In the spirit of…bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous.
This morning, in Israel, Obama was asked whether he would still give the same answer. His response:
I think that what I said in response was that I would at my time and choosing be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America. And that continues to be my position. That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity. But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparation.
You can check out the transcript of the whole 2007 debate here. Obama just didn’t talk about preparation.
The official word is still that Obama is a sure-thing to win…but he’s still only barely up in the polls and shows no signs of breaking out of his 45-47% range of support. The reason Obama isn’t walking away with this election? Because he’s proving himself ever more dishonest and nakedly ambitious for personal glory. People still don’t like the GOP and still aren’t sure about McCain, but outside the left and, naturally, African-Americans, the Obama myth has worn thin. None of this, in and of itself, means that McCain will win - McCain has a very hard fight in front of him and only a four in ten chance (at best) of winning it in the end - but Obama’s vulnerabilities are massive, glaring and growing…and one wonders just how long adulatory MSM coverage will keep the shine on the Obama apple?
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Iran, John McCain, Obama Deceptions
July 24th, 2008
Interesting recent poll from Rasmussen:
Nearly half of Americans (48%) now believe the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror, as opposed to 20% who give the nod to the terrorists, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national survey. These figures reflect a dramatic improvement from a year ago—in July 2007, only 36% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning. An equal number thought the terrorists held the advantage.
The 28-point difference is the most favorable margin recorded by Rasmussen Reports since tracking began in January 2004 and seems to reflect a growing confidence among adults that the tide is turning in Iraq and in the war on terror in general. The previous high was established on September 6, 2004 when 52% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning but 26% thought the terrorists were winning at that time for a 26-point favorable margin.
Thirty-seven percent (37%) now think the situation in Iraq will get better over the coming six months while only 25% expect it to get worse. A year ago, the assessment was far more pessimistic—just 23% said that things would get better while 49% offered the more pessimistic response. Another recent poll showed that 40% now believe it is possible for the U.S. to win the War in Iraq.
The new findings also show 45% now believe the United States is safer today than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, while 37% believe otherwise. Those figures are also the most optimistic on record.
The standard line about the end of the Cold War is that by putting the fear of nuclear war to bed, it allowed for a foreign policy lightweight - Bill Clinton- to win the White House. Its a great theory, but it forgets that 57% of the American people voted against Bill Clinton in 1992…hardly a ringing endorsement of Clinton’s policy prescriptions. But, today, the same idea is alive and well - heck, over at NRO’s The Corner some people seem to think that the mis-reported story of Maliki on Obama’s Iraq plan has pretty much wrecked McCain’s chances for November. The word is out - the American people really, really want to vote for a Democrat in November and McCain’s only shot was to convince the American people that with a war going on, placing our bets on the inexperienced Obama was too dangerous. And now that victory is breaking out in Iraq, that line is gone for good.
While there are a couple of third party candidates out there on the left and the right, my view is that for Obama to win he’s going to have to do something that no Democrat has managed in 32 years - score an outright majority of the vote in November. He can do it, but thus far the polling shows him consistently falling short and never showing any movement which would indicate he’s on his way to a majority. McCain seems stuck in the electoral doldrums, too - hardly ever breaking 45% in polling (though Rasmussen has recently showed Obama and McCain tied at 46%). What it seems to me is that while Obama has wowed his base, he’s not doing much with anyone else - meanwhile, McCain is doing remarkably well amongst independent voters, but has yet to enthuse the GOP base for November. Key to victory for McCain is energising the base, key for Obama is appealing outside the left.
In this McCain has an advantage. Obama is pretty much locked in to very leftwing positions - he’s tried to triangulate himself out of them, but he can’t stray too far towards the center lest he alienate too much of his base. McCain, on the other hand, has plenty of chances to make the argument to the GOP base that they’d better get excited about him - on taxes, spending, judges and the war, McCain is just what the GOP doctor ordered. McCain has two ways to do his job - propose conservative ideas, and point out Obama’s ultra liberal ideas, and what they’ll mean for America. In both cases, McCain can make a strong pitch for enthused GOP support.
So, while Obama and his Democrats might be thinking that the victory in Iraq gets them off the hook and they can just say “Afghanistan” from time to time and allow domestic issues to carry them to victory, in my view the victory in Iraq gives McCain the chance to force Obama on the defensive initially on just war issues, but eventually on the worthiness of his whole program. A man who can be so wrong about Iraq can also be wrong about other things - like whether or not he’ll be able to stick it out in Afghanistan; whether or not his health care plan is good for America; whether or not his energy policy has what it takes…on issue after issue, Obama’s manifestly bad judgement on Iraq can be used to question his fitness on other issues. And while doing this, McCain can continually point out his correctness on Iraq and how this courageous and right decision lays the groundwork for him to have the courage and wisdom to tackle judicial issues, Afghanistan, taxation, government waste, etc, etc, etc.
If attitudes about the war are improving as Rasmussen’s survey shows, then there may soon come a time when McCain’s pro-victory stance from 2007 switches from liability to asset, while Obama’s 2007 defeatism (already being shoved down the memory hole as far as Obama can manage it) will show through more and more as the foolhardy opinion of a man who hasn’t the knowledge, guts or wisdom to be President.
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Iraq, John McCain, liberal lies, Troop Surge
July 23rd, 2008
Can’t say it any clearer than this:
Over the last year, Senator Obama and I were part of a great debate about the war in Iraq. Both of us agreed the Bush administration had pursued a failed strategy there and that we had to change course. Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take. I called for a comprehensive new strategy — a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war. Senator Obama disagreed. He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.
Today we know Senator Obama was wrong. The surge has succeeded. And because of its success, the next President will inherit a situation in Iraq in which America’s enemies are on the run, and our soldiers are beginning to come home. Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: first you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy…
…In wartime, judgment and experience matter. In a time of war, the commander-in-chief doesn’t get a learning curve. If I have that privilege, I will bring to the job many years of military and political experience; experience that gave me the judgment necessary to make the right call in Iraq a year and half ago. I supported the surge because I believed it was our only realistic chance to reverse the disaster our previous strategy had caused, and the right thing to do for our country. And although events have proven me right, my position wasn’t popular at the time, and I risked my own political ambitions when I took it. When I tell you, I will put our country’s interests — your interests — before party; before any special interest; before my own interests, every hour of every day I’m in office, you can believe me. Because for my entire adult life, in war and peace, nothing has ever been more important to me than the se curity and well-being of the country I love. Thank you.
Obama was wrong about the surge - there is no way around that. More than his being wrong, however, there is now his rank dishonesty - his claims that he didn’t say the surge would fail, his Orwellian excising of his old Iraq position from his website, his attempts to spin himself into an architect of victory when he was singing the siren song of defeatism for the past 18 months. A dishonest man who can’t come up with the right solution - this is not the sort of man we want as President.
John McCain promises us that he’ll put country before everything - and we have the absolute proof that he’ll do that. He really did jump out in front of nearly everyone - including the President - in advocating one of the most unpopular acts our government has ever undertaken, and it worked…and our nation, and the world, is better off for it. All honor to those who saw the way clearly - and let us leave those who wanted to surrender in the dark recesses of our national memory, not elevated to the most powerful office in the world.
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Iraq, John McCain, liberal lies, Troop Surge
July 16th, 2008
So says this Newsmax report:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has dropped a bombshell by reversing course and suggesting that the Judiciary Committee might take up the issue of impeaching President Bush.
Pelosi’s change of heart comes after Rep. Dennis Kucinich moved a “privileged resolution” to force the House to consider whether Bush should be impeached for, according to the Ohio Democrat, lying to Congress and the American people about the reasons for invading Iraq.
Pelosi had previously declared impeachment to be “off the table” before the 2006 election. But she now believes hearings on the impeachment issue are “a distinct possibility,” according to The Nation magazine.
Pelosi told reporters on Thursday: “My expectation is that there will be some review of that in the committee. This is a Judiciary Committee matter, and I believe we will see some attention being paid to it by the Judiciary Committee.”
Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the committee, has said he is reviewing the articles of impeachment Kucinich has proposed. Previously he had felt constrained by the Speaker’s “off the table” comment.
This is either a sop to the kook left - a means of keeping them occupied by smoke and mirrors (they are rather gullible, after all) while Obama shifts right for the fall election…or its a desperate attempt to make people hate President Bush enough to carry Obama over the finish line in November (this would be the case if internal Democratic polling shows that only a tremendously and continuously unpopular Bush gives Obama an edge over McCain). In either case, its a dishonorable thing to do…and, of course, real hearings will never happen, nor will articles of impeachment be passed by the House, because a trial in the Senate would expose that each and every criticism of President Bush vis a vis Iraq is massively overstated, at best, or an outright lie, at worst. The last thing Democrats want is a full airing of the Iraq issue prior to the November election.
Tags: Defeaticrats, Dennis Kucinich, impeachment, Iraq, John Conyers, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi
July 12th, 2008
Seems to be more and more the case that while Obama will outspend McCain, the overall battle between Democrat and Republican will be more equal:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain raised more than $22 million in June, his best fundraising performance of the year, and ended the month with nearly $27 million cash on hand.
Campaign manager Rick Davis said Thursday that McCain and the national Republican Party together entered July with about $95 million in the bank. The Republican National Committee, which has been raising money jointly with McCain, collected nearly $26 million in June and had nearly $69 million on hand, officials said.
The campaign’s fundraising has given McCain the ability to spend more on television advertising than Democrat Barack Obama in key battleground states. Davis said about half of its income had been spent on television advertising.
Obama has not revealed his June fundraising.
In announcing McCain’s fundraising, Davis portrayed the campaign’s financial position as far brighter than ever before. He said the joint RNC-McCain fundraising through direct mail is now exceeding President Bush’s direct mail fundraising in 2004.
“We will have significant resources to prosecute a campaign that is very robust,” Davis said.
I wonder why Obama hasn’t released his June totals yet? I guess he doesn’t have to - but you’d think that if he were greatly outpacing McCain, he’d want to trumpet that…hey, just askin’….
The really crucial thing here for the GOP is the $69 million the RNC has - McCain is taking public financing, so all the money McCain raises must be spent by the end of August. That $69 million (which is likely to rise) will be used on party efforts to help McCain - and down-ballot GOPers (where we are trying to turn expected losses at least into holding our own). Meanwhile, the DNC is effectively broke, the Democrats can’t raise enough to pay for their convention and while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has a good sized bank account, it seems that Obama is sucking up all the rest of leftwing money, which opens the question about how down-ballot Democrats will fare even if Obama wins.
Things like the money totals; the continued ability of the military to secure recruits; the ability of President Bush to win on FISA and on war funding; the abysmal Congressional approval ratings….all fo this indicates that while Obama is still the favorite to win in November, he’s only marginally so and, meanwhile, the overall left - and the Democratic party - can’t figure itself a shoo-in (though, of course, they do believe that…and I hope they keep on believing they’ve got it in the bag).
My view is that the American people are worn out - tired out Iraq, true (but not so tired they are willing to lose in order to get out), but also tired of Congressional scandals (and, Donks, William Jefferson - you forced him to resign, yet?), tired of political back-biting, tired of heated rhetoric on energy while gas prices continue to rise, tired of shrinking home equity…change is, indeed, wanted and that is the whole point of Obama…but if specific change is proposed, which way will the electorate go? McCain is offering concrete proposals, while Obama keeps things as vague as he can. Which will actually resonate come November?
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, fundrasing, John McCain, oil price, RNC
July 11th, 2008
You get Barack Obama’s policies:
Obama’s Iraq Withdrawal Plan May Prove Difficult
U.S. Commanders in Iraq Warn of Security Dangers, See Logistical Nightmare
Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy, the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama would “immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”
It is a plan that, no doubt, helped Obama get his party’s nomination, but one that may prove difficult if he is elected president.
Military personnel in Iraq are following the presidential race closely, especially when it comes to Iraq.
The soldiers and commanders we spoke to will not engage in political conversation or talk about any particular candidate, but they had some strong opinions about the military mission which they are trying to accomplish, and the dramatic security gains they have made in the past few months.
We spent a day with Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City. He is the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible for Baghdad. Hammond will likely be one of the commanders who briefs Barack Obama when he visits Iraq.
“We still have a ways to go. Number one, we’re working on security and it’s very encouraging, that’s true, but what we’re really trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So, I think my first response to that would be let’s look at the conditions.”…
…On the streets of Baghdad, where a suicide bomber had struck just days before, Capt. Josh West told us he wants to finish the mission, and that any further drawdown has to be based on conditions on the ground.
“If we pull out of here too early, it’s going to establish a vacuum of power that violent criminal groups will be able to fill once we leave,” West said.
Capt. Jeremy Ussery, a West Point graduate on his third deployment, pointed to his heavy body armor as we walked in the 120-degree heat, saying, “The same people keep coming back because we want to see Iraq succeed, that’s what we want. I don’t want my kids, that hopefully will join the military, my notional children, to have to come back to Iraq 30 years from now and wear this.”
But Ussery added, “You can’t put a timetable on it — it’s events-based.”
The report further notes that while we may be able to get the troops out in 16 months, the logistics of getting all the equipment out makes a time table like that unrealistic. As a for-instance, moving out two combat bridages in a month means, among many other things, moving out 1,200 humvees. The fundamental problem with the left - other than the fact that leftwing thought is based on a lie - is that life doesn’t match leftwing conceptions. I doubt much that Obama has ever considered military logistics in formulating his policies - and not in the sense of he knew they were a factor but dismissed them, but that he didn’t know they were a factor. Most liberals aren’t concerned with such things - and this is the result of their over-concentration on purity of intentions as opposed to paying attention to results of actions.
Obama and his Democrats will pull us out of Iraq in 16 months…and they will “end” the war, which is another indication that Obama hasn’t actually thought about what he believes. Wars don’t “end” - they are won, or they are lost. Vietnam didn’t “end” - it was lost. People who have bothered to instruct themselves in matters of foreign and military policy understand that regardless of what one thinks of President Bush and the reasons for liberating Iraq, the fact that we are there now imposes upon us the choice to win, or to lose. Additionally, people who have bothered instructing themselves understand that losing a war is always worse than winning. No matter what high minded goal one has in life, it is better met with victory than with defeat. But in Obama’s fantasy world, intent trumps results and if he wins we’ll be given at least four years of leftwing fantasy clashing with life’s realities.
Thanks, but I prefer John McCain - warts and all - because he lives in the real world…
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Iraq, John McCain, liberal lies, Troop Surge
July 11th, 2008
In spite of what you might have heard from the left, under President Bush’s leadership, we have vastly improved our ability to track terrorists and keep America safe:
In the six-and-a-half years that the U.S. government has been fingerprinting insurgents, detainees and ordinary people in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa, hundreds have turned out to share an unexpected background, FBI and military officials said. They have criminal arrest records in the United States.
There was the suspected militant fleeing Somalia who had been arrested on a drug charge in New Jersey. And the man stopped at a checkpoint in Tikrit who claimed to be a dirt farmer but had 11 felony charges in the United States, including assault with a deadly weapon.
The records suggest that potential enemies abroad know a great deal about the United States because many of them have lived here, officials said. The matches also reflect the power of sharing data across agencies and even countries, data that links an identity to a distinguishing human characteristic such as a fingerprint.
“I found the number stunning,” said Frances Fragos Townsend, a security consultant and former assistant to the president for homeland security. “It suggested to me that this was going to give us far greater insight into the relationships between individuals fighting against U.S. forces in the theater and potential U.S. cells or support networks here in the United States.”
The fingerprinting of detainees overseas began as ad-hoc FBI and U.S. military efforts shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It has since grown into a government-wide push to build the world’s largest database of known or suspected terrorist fingerprints. The effort is being boosted by a presidential directive signed June 5, which gave the U.S. attorney general and other cabinet officials 90 days to come up with a plan to expand the use of biometrics by, among other things, recommending categories of people to be screened beyond “known or suspected” terrorists.
Fingerprints are being beamed in via satellite from places as far-flung as the jungles of Zamboanga in the southern Philippines; Bogota, Colombia; Iraq; and Afghanistan. Other allies, such as Sweden, have contributed prints. The database can be queried by U.S. government agencies and by other countries through Interpol, the international police agency.
Couple points:
1. The “dirt farmer” in Tikrit who turned out to be wanted in the US: all through this post-liberation battle in Iraq we’ve heard endlessly from the left that those fighting us are just Iraqis who want us out…and how do they know this? Because it was reported in the news…as if a western MSMer who spends most of his time in the Green Zone can tell the difference between an Arab from Tikrit and an Arab from Damascus. Certainly, plenty of Iraqis - for a while - joined the fight against us and the Iraqi government, but the vital leaven in the enemy forces, the thing which kept the fight hot, was the foreigners who came in with money, expertise (its not like Saddam actually trained his people to defend themselves, ya know?) and the will to fight. One wonders how many “Iraqis” in the news voicing opposition to the US were really Iraqis…
2. The fact that many of these people have turned out to be wanted in the US for various crimes gives one pause about claims of innocent people winding up in Gitmo - once again, how would an MSMer really be able to find out that the “innocent detainee” he’s interviewing is really someone innocent? Obviously, if someone is wanted in the US but is out and about in, say Somalia, then he’s already tangled with the law and got out of it by one means or another. Unless one wants to subscribe to the theory that our soldiers and intelligence agents are stupid thugs, one must give the benefit of the doubt to our side and discount media stories about allegedly innocent detainees. Not that an innocent person cannot have been picked up, but that the chances of a completely innocent person winding up in Gitmo are very small and would be the exception proving the rule.
3. What a good idea, huh? Everyone who is detained by us is fingerprinted and we gather forensic data from terrorist attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere and slowly build up a picture of who is doing what to whom. Over time this would give us a very good picture of what we’re up against (in terms of numbers, skills, effectiveness, etc) and allow us to subvert the terrorist groups from the outside and derail their efforts through misdirection.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama and his Democrats are saying that we have to get out of Iraq - at least, they’re saying it “pre-refinement”; we’ll probably see a changed tune soon, however - because Iraq has distracted us from the “real” war on terrorism…thing is, under President Bush we’ve managed to win in Iraq, win in Afghanistan, kill or capture many thousands of terrorists, build up a data base on global terrorism, de-fang Libya, end Pakistan’s “Nukes R Us” market, secure a growing alliance with India, Eritrea, Djibouti, Georgia and Poland, watch as France, Germany and other European States figure out that we’re doing the right thing in the War on Terrorism, increase the size of our military, re-equip our forces with the most modern weapons and materiel available, beef up our intelligence agencies, start to secure the border…and this is just the stuff we know about; there’s probably a lot which is still classified and we might not find out about for 50 years. Not a bad job for the man the left considers to be an evil idiot.
HAT TIP: NRO’s The Corner
Tags: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, border security, Defeaticrats, intelligence, Iraq, John McCain
July 7th, 2008
Which was totally harmless and, naturally, Saddam and his peaceful, secularist country would never, ever have dreamed of using the stuff for a WMD:
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam’s nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
What’s now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.
“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.
While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called “dirty bomb” — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.
Prior to the left deciding that the whole WMD argument was a lie (and part of the larger BUSH LIED!!! meme), there was this 2003 news report:
In the suburbs about 18 miles south of the capital’s suburbs, this city comprises nearly 100 buildings — workshops, laboratories, cooling towers, nuclear reactors, libraries and barracks — that belong to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission.
Investigators Tuesday discovered that Al-Tuwaitha hides another city. This underground nexus of labs, warehouses, and bomb-proof offices was hidden from the public and, perhaps, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors who combed the site just two months ago, until the U.S. Marine Corps Combat Engineers discovered it three days ago…
…Yesterday, Hamza expressed great surprise that the underground site could even exist. The ground there is muddy and composed of clay, he said. The water table is barely a foot and a half below the surface of the ground. During construction of one of the former nuclear reactors there, French engineers spent a fortune pumping water from the foundation area, only to see buildings crumble when the water was removed.
Hamza said the French built a reactor at Al-Tuwaitha that Israel destroyed in 1981. The Russians built a reactor that was destroyed during the Gulf War. Both had the muddy ground to contend with.
So the Marine’s discovery makes the former atomic inspector wonder if the Iraqis went to the colossal expense of pumping enough water to build the underground city because no reasonable inspector would think anything might be built underground there.
Nobody would expect it,” Hamza said. “Nobody would think twice about going back there.”
Despite being destroyed twice by bombings, Al-Tuwaitha nevertheless grew to become headquarters of the Iraqi nuclear program, with several research reactors, plutonium processors and uranium enrichment facilities bustling, according to the Federation of American Scientists.
“The plutonium processing was dispersed on-site by the bombing in 1991,” said Michael Levi, the Federation’s director. “But the Iraqis started to rebuild it. And they continued building there after 1998, when the Iraqis ended the inspections.
Lots of people have lied about Iraq. Saddam lied. The French, German, Russian and UN bureaucrats who were bribed by Saddam lied. Plame lied. Wilson lied. The anti-war movement lied. President Bush, though, didn’t lie - not even once, and not even slightly. Remember: Saddam wasn’t supposed to have anything which could be used as part of a WMD program…but, amongst other banned things, he had 550 tons of yellowcake and post-Gulf War nuclear facilities undetected by the agencies charged with keeping tabs on him. Unless you want to assert - against all evidence - that Saddam was hiding entirely innocent and peaceful programs, the only logical conclusion is that he was, indeed, violating the 1991 cease fire vis a vis WMDs. Added to all the other justifications for liberating Iraq what we have here is that back in 2003 the only logical course of events for us once Saddam had re-thumbed his nose at the UN inspectors was to remove him from power.
The anti-Bush effort vis a vis Iraq has been a sick combination of stupidity, deception and cowardice…all of it done for purely political reasons by people on the left (joined by a few on the right) who wish to harm the United States in general and President Bush in particular. That millions of people have fallen for it just shows that Lincoln’s adage is correct - you can fool some of the people all of the time. There is, unfortunately, no way for us to immediately repair the damage - President Bush will leave office with millions of people having the conviction that he lied about Iraq and Saddam’s WMD programs. Only as this generation dies away and those personally identified with creating the lies are gone will an entirely unbiased treatment of this issue be possible.
Tags: Defeaticrats, Iraq, liberal lies, WMD
July 6th, 2008
Older Posts
