Proven: Democrats Give Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.
Details at The Ice Palace.
54 comments March 30th, 2008
Posts with the tag 'War on Terror'
Obama’s Lack of an Iraq Plan
From Gateway Pundit:
Just like his talk on NAFTA, it looks like Obama is not to be trusted with what he says on Iraq, either.
The American Mind has the transcript:STEPHEN SACKUR: Let me stop you just for a moment. You said that he’ll revisit it when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn’t a commitment isn’t it?
POWER: You can’t make a commitment in whatever month we’re in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. We can’t even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troop pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator.
He will rely upon a plan, an operational plan that he pulls together, in consultation with people who are on the ground, to whom he doesn’t have daily access now as a result of not being the president.
So to think, I mean it would be the height of ideology, you know, to sort of say, well I said it therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality entreats me –
SACKUR: Ok, so the 16 months is negotiable?
POWER: It’s the best case scenario…
Power, of course, is now out due to calling Hillary a monster, but I think this is rather descriptive of the vacuity of Obama on foreign and defense policy. This is the man who has repeatedly said he’d “end” the war in Iraq in 2009…and here’s his senior foreign policy advisor saying, in essence, “well, we just don’t know”…and, of course, there’s nothing wrong with not knowing exactly what you’ll do come January 2009 but for crying out loud, if you don’t know then don’t go making fool statements implying that you do know!
I was wandering around a book store on Saturday and espied Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, and it occured to me just how inane that title is…like something put together by a publisher using a focus group to figure out a title which sounds best. And it does sound good, but it doesn’t actually mean anything - being hopeful is audacious? If you are audacious you’ll be hopeful? I figure an earlier version of the title was Yes We Can Have Audacious Hope - but it was rejected as too many words for a liberal to grasp all at once…
This man, Barack Obama: no executive experience; minimal legislative experience; never held a job which required results…a lot of words. That is all.
45 comments March 9th, 2008
The Democrats’ Valentine to the American People…
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.
42 comments February 14th, 2008
Bush Condemns Bhutto Assassination
President George W. Bush condemned the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto on Thursday, an act of violence that shredded U.S. hopes for democratic elections in the country that is a key ally in Bush’s war on terrorism.
“The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan’s democracy. Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice,” Bush said in a statement to reporters at his Texas ranch.
The president praised Bhutto’s courage in returning to Pakistan in October to participate in elections aimed at restoring a democratic government after eight years of military rule of President Pervez Musharraf.
UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Interesting commentary from John Podhoretz - The End of the Primary’s Holiday From History
The past three months have seen an odd turn in the presidential primary process in both parties — a turn away from the key issues confronting the United States and toward emotional and social vapor. The success of the surge in Iraq, coupled with the bizarre “we’re safe” reading of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, drained some of the passion from the anti-war fervor in the Democratic primary electorate and from the hawkish fervor of the Republican primary electorate. In their place came the Christian identity-politics rise of Mike Huckabee on the Republican side and the “we need a nice new politics” rise of Barack Obama on the Democratic side. Republicans squabbled about sanctuary cities and sanctuary mansions. Democrats squabbled about how many uninsured there would be left if their various health-care plans were imposed on the country.
The horrifying assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan this morning comes only one week before the Iowa caucuses and 12 days before New Hampshire. It is a sobering and frightening reminder of the challenges and threats and dangers posed to the United States by radical Islam, the nature of the struggle being waged against the effort to extend democratic freedoms in the Muslim world, and the awful possibility of a nuclear Pakistan overrun by Islamofascists. This is what the next president will be compelled by circumstance to spend a plurality of his or her time on. This is what really matters, not the cross Mike Huckabee lit up behind his head in his Christmas ad.
Very true words.
78 comments December 27th, 2007
Awaiting an Iraqi Tet?
Austin Bay over at Real Clear Politics figures the terrorists will try some sort of Tet in 2008 timed to discredit the war in the heat of an American political campaign, much as North Vietnam did during the original Tet in 1968. Bay concludes thusly:
Last week Reid hedged his defeatist rhetoric. However, al Qaeda and Saddamist plotters are betting a deadly spasm of bombs and subsequent media magnification will give Reid a reason “to clip his hedge.”
Their “ultimate Iraqi Tet” would feature simultaneous terror strikes in every major Iraqi city. These simultaneous strikes would inflict hideous civilian casualties with the goal of discrediting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s and General David Petraeus’ assessments that Iraqi internal security has improved. The terrorists would reduce Iraqi government buildings to rubble. Striking the Green Zone would be the media coup de grace, intentionally echoing North Vietnam’s assault on the U.S. embassy in Saigon. Al Qaeda terrorists would also attack Shia shrines. Kidnapping or assassinating of senior Iraqi leaders would be another objective.
Actually executing a genuine Giap Tet-type offensive in Iraq, however, borders on fantasy. On a daily basis Iraq’s assorted terrorist organizations and militia gangs want to cause such system-shaking, simultaneous carnage, but they don’t because, well, they can’t. A Giap Tet requires a level of coordination the terrorists have never exhibited because they simply don’t have it. It requires internal Iraqi political support that the terror cadres and militias lack; fear is not a political program.
Still, the terrorists will attempt a series of terror spectaculars, and kill several hundred civilians in the process, because — in the quadrennial turmoil of an American presidential contest — sensational carnage that even momentarily seeds the perception of defeat is their only chance of victory.
It is my view that the terrorists already did this - in 2006, with a mind towards influencing the outcome of the 2006 campaign. It worked - the drumbeat of endless bombings in Baghdad, reported by a mindless MSM which refused to report the whole truth, contributed to that sense of government (ie, GOP) failure which underpinned Democratic strategy. If failed - while the Democrats got in, they didn’t get in on an explicitly anti-war platform, and President Bush showed true grit in staring down both the defeatists and the terrorists. The enemy in Iraq may well try again in 2008, but their networks in Iraq have been heavily disrupted by the troop surge, and I doubt they are capable of mounting a nation-wide terrorism campaign. As a matter of fact, I would look for them to try something spectacular here in the United States, as that would take less resources and make a bigger splash.
However it may be, the enemy is hoping and praying for Democratic victory in 2008 because they know that President Bush won’t quit, and any of his likely GOP successors will keep right at it, at least for a couple years into the next Administration. While Hillary, Obama and Edwards don’t mean it to be this way, the fate of the terrorists rides with their electoral prospects in 2008. Even someone as sensible as Hillary on Iraq simply won’t be able to sustain the campaign without risking a fatal split in the Democratic party. Obama and Edwards - as well as the rest of the Democratic contenders - are even more unrealistic, and might actually view a precipitate withdrawal as a good thing (quite honestly, this is more a reflection of just how ignorant and foolish the Democrats are these days - there are some Democrats who do, indeed, want our defeat in service of leftwing goals…but the Democratic leadership, for the most part, just doesn’t understand whom they are working with in groups like MoveOn).
The victory in Iraq is already ours - but reaping the reward of the victory will take a year or two, and might require some sharp fighting from time to time. Only a Republican President can carry this forward, and thus electing a Republican in 2008 is a matter of basic national security, outside of any other considerations of policy.
83 comments December 27th, 2007
Lieberman To Endorse McCain?
According to FOX News contributor Bill Kristol, Senator Joe Lieberman is set to endorse John McCain for President.
Assuming this is true, there’s a lot to be said about this.
First, considering Joe Lieberman was once the Democratic nominee for Vice President, and also ran for president as a Democrat, this endorsement speaks volumes about not only the current slate of Democratic candidates for president, but also the Democratic Party.
No one can say that Lieberman is just getting back at the Democratic Party for not sticking behind him when he ran for reelection to the Senate, because he has still be caucusing with the Democrats in the Senate. So, despite the enormous insult he received from the Democratic Party, he still remains somewhat loyal to them. But clearly, this endorsement is a rejection of the Democratic Party being increasingly beholden to the radical anti-war MoveOn.org wing of the party.
But, clearly this isn’t just an endorsement of a Republican candidate, this is a rejection of the Democratic Party’s candidates and their defeatist views on the war on terror. If Lieberman thought any of the current Democratic nominees were capable of effectively leading the war on terror then he would endorse one of them.
This also brings up a the possibility that Lieberman could be willing to join the ticket of the Republican nominee, whether the nominee is McCain or not. That would be an interesting situation, and easily help the ticket appeal to independent voters and moderate Democrats.
Will it help McCain? I would say it helps him less in the primaries than it would in the general election, but it certainly doesn’t hurt him. It certainly makes him appear to be the candidate that can win over more independents and moderate voters, and if that is something important to primary voters it can certainly give him a boost.
It’s just too bad that if Lieberman is endorsing a Republican that he hasn’t made the switch to caucus with Republicans in the Senate. Most importantly, our troops would be getting the funds they need.
26 comments December 16th, 2007
A New MilBlogger
Reporting straight from Baghdad over at GraniteGrok:
My name is Major Kirk Luedeke, and I’m blogging with my fellow Granite Staters, from Forward Operating Base Falcon in Southern Baghdad.
.
This is the first of what I hope will be a regular companion piece to Doug’s and Skip’s terrific blog. The blogosphere continues to expand and explode, and it is a distinct honor that granitegrok.com has asked me to become a contributor to this forum. I hope that you will all come away with a better understanding of what is happening in our little slice of Iraqi paradise when all is said and done.
.
As a U.S. Army brigade Public Affairs Officer, I will state up front and for the record that the content of this blog will consist of facts, observations and personal opinions based on firsthand experiences here. I am in no way speaking for the Army or the U.S. government. I welcome anyone who has questions or wants to engage in additional discourse to contact me via email at kirkaluedeke@yahoo.com.
The sad facts of the modern world are that we cannot rely on the MSM to report the truth - fortunately, there are bloggers like Major Luedeke who will tell us what is really going on. We here at Blogs for Victory welcome Major Luedeke to the blogosphere.
5 comments December 10th, 2007
Regarding Days That Will Live in Infamy…
It was the attack that sounded the clarion call; that the United States could no longer stand idly by while evil elements made their insidious trek across the globe.
It was the decisive moment that provided Americans with the righteous indignation that would be required to sustain them in fueling their eventual victory over the then-axis of evil; Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. No longer would that generation stand on the sidelines, waiting for someone else to take up that mantle; nor would they pass the burden for future generations to bear.
This was their moment. Their cup of suffering did not pass, but neither did their sacrifices fail to bear the fruits of liberty for future generations; not only of the United States of America, but of the entire global community.
_________________________________________
Fast forward to another day that will continue to live in infamy:
This, dear readers, is our generation’s clarion call. The time when history asks us to step up to the plate to fight a global evil.
Will we follow the brave example of what up til now had been our greatest generation? Will we now take up the mantle to fight the forces that threaten liberty, and portend doom upon our way of life, if not our very existence?
Or, will we instead squander the fruits of the sacrifices that followed that fateful day in December of 1941; opting rather to play on political expediency; hoping against hope that the unthinkable will not occur. Or if it does, that it will do so long after our generation passes; leaving our progeny to live their lives in slavish dhimmitude, if at all.
Dear readers, History today calls upon us to answer the call of defending liberty.
The question that is yet to be answered is thus: Will we utilize the clarion call put forth by the events on September 11th, 2001 as a source of righteous indignation to persevere in the cause of freedom? Or will our generation be the one that allowed government by the people, of the people, and for the people to perish from the earth?
I shudder to think about the looming answer to that question.
37 comments December 7th, 2007
