Posts with the tag 'National Security'
In answer to those “conservatives” and RINOs who have thrown all honor aside and decided to back Obama:
The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who’s been cramming on these issues for the past year, who’s never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of “a world that stands as one”), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as “the tragedy of 9/11,” a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?
There’s just no comparison. Obama’s own running mate warned this week that Obama’s youth and inexperience will invite a crisis — indeed a crisis “generated” precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he’s been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.
The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.
Today’s economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I’m for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb.
Indeed – to try to find an excuse for supporting Obama, one has to reach into a very large sack of bull feces. One can decide to support Obama, but the reasons those few turncoats have used are stupid, and reveal that their larger worry is not what will happen to the United States, as a whole, but what might happen to their fellow elitists if McCain and Palin start to call people to account for what they have done with the public trust. The elite hates John McCain, because he is not one of them; never has been, never will be. The elite hates and fears Sarah Palin because not only will she never be one of them, she’ll also be a person who will wage relentless war against the elite. The last thing our governing class wants – regardless of whether they call themselves liberals or conservatives – is to have a hard-hitting, articulate “woman of the people” deciding what to investigate.
As I’ve said before, no matter what happens on November 4th, the conservative movement wins. The liberals will saddled with Obama and his pied pipers of failed socialism, while we conservatives will still have Sarah Palin, and rising up fast behind her, Bobby Jindal. It is my view that both the present and the future are ours – but even if we take a temporary hit in the here and now, tomorrow is still ours, because we have leaders of tomorrow, while the Democrats have only the worn-out retreads of the liberal yesteryear.
In John McCain and Sarah Palin we have what the Founders envisioned we should have – citizen leaders who will adhere to the stern, republican virtues and never see politics as a means of advancing one’s self, or one’s party. I pray God to protect them both and impart to them the sense of love, the desire to serve and the good sense necessary to win on November 4th, and govern well starting on January 20th.
Tags: Democrats, National Security, Sarah Palin
October 25th, 2008
Making dreams come true seems to be the norm these days for our wonderful men and women in uniform. Security and responsibility for the Anbar Province in Iraq was handed over to the Iraqis today.
“This would have been a dream two or three years ago. This was the cradle of Al Qaeda.”
– Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser
At the same time, the success of the surge can be seen through the dramatic drop in civilian casualties:
This invaluable chart is provided by Professor John Wixted’s “Back Talk” blog, who concludes thusly:
“No matter how you slice it, the troop surge has been an almost unbelievable success . . . There is no escaping the fact that when it mattered the most, Obama strongly supported abandoning Iraq to the wolves of al Qaeda. That’s definitely not the judgment we need.”
Tags: Iraq Campaign, Judgement, National Security
September 1st, 2008
The McCain campaign held a conference call earlier today with Rudy Giuliani and senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann to respond to Senator Obama’s remarks on terrorism.
In response to the conference, plagiarist Joe Biden made the following comment.
“It’s no surprise that it takes a man with zero national security and foreign policy experience to defend the policies of John McCain and President Bush.”
That’s really funny, because it’s really no surprise that it takes a man with zero national security and foreign policy experience to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for president.
Tags: Global War on Terrorism, Joe Biden, liberal lies, National Security, Rudy Giuliani
June 18th, 2008
It’s stories like these that prove that Obama’s general election electability has been grossly overestimated by his loyal followers.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who wrapped his party’s presidential nomination just this week, is already besieged by liberal constituencies demanding that he cut military spending to boost social programs.
Two influential liberal groups have sent the presumptive Democratic nominee a letter pressing him to support cuts to defense programs to pay for universal preschool, relief for Americans facing foreclosure on their homes and expanded benefits for military veterans.
The demands carry weight because the groups, the Black Leadership Forum and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), represent two constituencies that are important to Obama’s political strategy: blacks and Hispanics.
Their calls for defense cuts have drawn the support of leading House liberals, many of whom gave Obama crucial support early in his contest against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
[...]
Since clinching the party’s nomination on Tuesday, Obama has already tacked to the right on security issues in preparation for the general election. During a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Wednesday, Obama proposed sanctions on Iran that analysts viewed as far tougher than what he suggested before.
Now Obama must balance tough talk on national security with the desires of many Democrats to slim American military power.
Of course, his desire for tea parties with terrorists isn’t exactly what I call tough talk on national security, but the point is still relevant. Liberal special interests don’t want our country to be a military power — and I’m certain Obama doesn’t either, but he can’t be too honest about it on the campaign trail, especially now that he needs to appeal to general election voters, not just the far left voters of the Democratic Primaries.
I think that the closer we get to Election Day, the more Obama will have to find some balance between his far left ideology with general election rhetoric. How can he please the liberal special interests while maintaining electability in November? He can’t.
Obama won’t be just feeling pressure from liberal special interests, but from within the Democratic Party itself.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the rapid growth of defense spending compared to domestic spending in recent years is “outrageous.” She wants to slim defense programs and boost education and healthcare funding.
Lee and other House liberals would like to see about $60 billion in defense spending cuts. Specifically, they want to steer money away from what they call “Cold War-era” weapons systems, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Liberals have also called for cuts to the ballistic missile defense program, the F/A-22 Raptor, the V-22 Osprey and the DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer.
“This is one of many issues the caucus will be talking about to him,” Lee said of plans to press Obama on defense budget cuts. “I’m definitely going to present this.”
And we’re definitely going to be interested in Obama’s response.
Tags: National Security
June 8th, 2008
Apparently wanting to join in a suicide pact, Obama lays out his plan for national defense.
Details/video at The Ice Palace.
Tags: National Security
March 17th, 2008
Real Clear Politics has the video for the new Clinton Ad: It’s 3am and there’s a crisis, who do you want answering the phone?
This is powerful stuff, and the Obama camp’s weak, “Hillary had her 3am moment when she voted for Iraq” just doesn’t cut it, in my view. An election between non-incumbants is more about where you want to go rather than where you’ve been - sure, the far left despises Hillary over her Iraq vote, but the broad mass of the electorate, even if they now wish us to withdraw, won’t view a hard vote at a difficult time as a weakness…though they will view an “I’ll pull out of Iraq, and go back in, if necessary” position as a wishy-washy attempt to have it both ways.
Right now, Obama still rides high and recent polls even show him ahead in Texas - can Hillary turn this around by Tuesday? We shall see.
Tags: Iraq Campaign, National Security
February 29th, 2008
Stephen Spruiell over at NRO has gathered quite a collection of e mails from military personnel - past and present - who dispute Obama’s assertion of ill-equipped US troops - a sample will do for here, but you should go check them all out:
I am an Infantry Captain. I have deployed to Afghanistan twice, OEF 4 (2003-2004) and OEF 7-8 (2006-2007). In the army, we don’t split up units like that; the quote about 15 guys from a rifle platoon bound for Afghanistan getting sent to Iraq is utter nonsense. Not enough ammunition? are you nuts? No soldier leaves Bagram Airfield without a Basic Load, 210 rds of 5.56 (7 full magazines).
As to the statement about humvees, early in OEF there was a shortage of vehicles, specifically up-armored ones — the IED threat was still relatively new at that time. During my last deployment with 2-87 Infantry (3D BCT, 10th MTN DIV) that took place from January 2006 until May of 2007, every soldier in our task force was equipped with state of the art equipment, and plentiful amounts of it. We fired veritable mountains of ammunition during combat operations, and always had more on hand. Vehicles were plentiful, as were the resources required to maintain (the REAL challenge!) them.
US Soldiers do not use enemy weapons or equipment under most circumstances (Special Forces and assorted secret squirrel guys sometimes do). Think about it: why would I train up on a weapon system, zero the optic so that I hit what I aim at, maintain it etc. and then trade it in for an AK47?
What do we do with captured Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Haqqani/Waziri equipment? We turn some of it over to the Afghan police (what is serviceable, which usually isn’t much) and Afghan army units, but the majority is destroyed.
I seriously question the veracity of the “Army Captain” referred to. Most disturbing to me about this incident is it illustrates how clueless Obama and his staff are when it comes to the military. Prepared to be the CIC indeed.
The only part of Obama’s story which survives some scrutiny is the part where he says a captain was in command of a platoon - platoons aren’t commanded by captains, but we give the benefit of the doubt and say that the captain was a lieutenant when he was sent to Afghanistan - other than that, Obama’s story is proving to be pure fiction, just on the practical aspects of it, especially in that no one has ever heard of a platoon being divvied up between different theaters.
The central issue here is not the story, as such, but the fact that Obama believes it - which indicates he is entirely clueless as to the composition and employment of the United States military he aspires to command. Without question, John McCain is the better man to be Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces - while qualification to be CinC should not be, in and of itself, determinative of whether a person becomes CinC, it is a very important aspect of the job, especially in the very dangerous times we live in. And while military knowledge is not vital to be President, Obama’s lack of such knowledge also brings up his general lack of executive experience, as well as real-world knowledge - in short, Obama has never really had to do anything strenuous or risky on his own part in order to obtain the position he holds, and the position he aspires to.
The question before us - if Obama secures the nomination - is whether or not we, the people of the United States of America, are willing to turn our government over to a man of such clearly substandard qualifications? There is, perhaps, a chance that a President Obama will be a quick study and become a competant President, but if he is elected he will be the first man so positioned in at least a century - even comparitively unqualified JFK had some command and real world experience in his Navy days during WWII; Obama has nothing to recommend him except a good speaking style.
Tags: National Security, US Military
February 25th, 2008
In short, “We don’t give a damn about national security.”
From a press release from Michele Bachmann (MN 6th CD)
“It is unconscionable that with America’s security on the line, the Democrats chose to spend Congress’ time on pointless partisan posturing. As a member of Congress I serve no higher duty than to help keep our friends, families and loved ones safe. The Protect America Act has been a critical part of the effort to prevent, interrupt and foil terrorist attacks. Yet with it set to expire in just two days, the Democrats refused to work with Republicans to reauthorize it.
“The Protect America Act provides vital updates to the original 1978 FISA provision, allowing law enforcement and intelligence services to meet the threat posed by the enemies of today. For over six months house Democrats have refused to bring a comprehensive, long-term FISA bill to the floor.
“Even the Senate passed a bipartisan reauthorization bill. And the President cleared his schedule to ensure that terrorist chatter wouldn’t slip through the cracks while our intelligence officers awaited these important surveillance tools.
“But the Democrats were more interested in establishing commemorative weeks, honoring groups and taking cheap shots at Administration officials. About the most substantive thing they had planned for today were technical corrections to a 36-year-old fungicide bill. And so I joined my fellow house republicans in walking off the floor today in protest.
“America’s safety must come before partisanship. Democrats need to work with Republicans to pass long-term FISA reform. I hope that today’s Republican action will help propel a FISA bill onto the floor so we can get back to the business of protecting the American people.”
And the Christian Science Monitor reports that the dems in Congress are willing to let FISA die altogether. Yeah.. real smart.
If we get another 9/11 or worse, lay the blame at the feet of Nancy Pelosi.
‘Nuff said.
Tags: Democrat dirty tricks, Democrat obstruction, National Security, War on Terror
February 14th, 2008
The United States does have enemies in the world:
Gregg William Bergersen, 51, of Alexandria, was arrested at his home on espionage charges. Tai Shen Kuo, a Taiwan-born U.S. citizen, 58, and Yu Xin Kang, a Chinese national, 33, both of New Orleans, were arrested in New Orleans on charges of conspiracy to provide defense secrets to China.
Mr. Bergersen worked as a weapons system analyst for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, in Arlington, which is in charge of U.S. arms sales to foreign nations. He held a top-secret clearance.
One official said the case involved the transfer of command, control, communications and intelligence equipment originally sold to Taiwan that was diverted to China.
Court papers state that the three men conspired to transfer defense secrets during meetings with Chinese intelligence officials.
“Today’s prosecution demonstrates that foreign spying remains a serious threat,” said Kenneth L. Wainstein, assistant attorney general for national security.
Indeed it does, and one of the many things to consider in November is just which candidate is likely to keep on top of these threats. In Hillary Clinton, we’ve got a person who gets a lot of her money, illegally, from Chinese sources. In Barack Obama we have a man who doesn’t have the knowledge or experience to understand what sorts of threats we face. In John McCain, we have a man who has fought and suffered for our nation, who went to the mat to defend victory in Iraq, and who knows what a dangerous world we live in.
Who would make the better President?
Tags: Chinese spying, National Security
February 12th, 2008
