Blogs For Victory

Matthew Rothschild over at The Progressive:

…those things that truly made us great—the system of checks and balances, the enshrinement of our individual rights and liberties—have all been systematically assaulted by Bush and Cheney.

From the Patriot Act to the Military Commissions Act to the new FISA Act, and all the signing statements in between, we are less great today.

From Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Force Base and Guantanamo, we are less great today.

From National Security Presidential Directive 51 (giving the Executive responsibility for ensuring constitutional government in an emergency) to National Security Presidential Directive 59 (expanding the collection of our biometric data), we are less great today.

From the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to InfraGard and the Terrorist Liaison Officers, we are less great today.

Admit it. We don’t have a lot to brag about today.

It is time, it is long past time, to get over the American superiority complex.

It is time, it is long past time, to put patriotism back on the shelf—out of the reach of children and madmen.

The madmen would presumptively be Bush and Cheney – now, to be fair to Mr. Rothschild, he does list other American sins which are noy intrinsic to Bush/Cheney – our consumerism and other evils, real and imagined, which the left dredges up from time to time to prove that we’re a bunch of creeps…and if we’d only all become leftists, all would be made better. The curious thing about Mr. Rothschild’s article is that it starts out condemning nationalism – even saying that it is a worse killer than religion, and that is a great concession on the part of any leftist. After all, the whole point of religion – and especially Christianity, and most especially Catholicism – is to kill and destroy and hold down…so to say that nationalism is a bigger ill is astounding, and demonstrates the author’s sincerity in being the anti-patriot.

And yet, he ends his bit by lamenting the way Bush and Cheney have allegedly done away with the US Constitution – in other words, he’s distressed over the supposed demise of a national government. This would seem to indicate that it isn’t really nationalism which gets Mr. Rothschild upset, but a sort of nationalism he doesn’t like. He’s convinced himself that if only we could recover our old, hallowed Constitutional structure, we’d be a better nation…no reactionary ever said it better (side note: the curious thing about leftists is how very reactionary they actually are).

Earlier in the piece the author condemns another writer for pointing out that we love our nation the same way we love our family – because they are ours. Mr. Rothschild doesn’t like this concept at all – in fact, he’s of the opinion that there’s something inherently wrong with loving the nation you’re born in simply because it is your native land – such love is somehow imposed and thus false. For Mr. Rothschild, we should love what is lovable – which is true, in a very narrow sense, but the real test of human character is to love what is unlovely.

It is easy to love the sublime, much harder to find the love in the ridiculous. Given that most human actions tend towards the latter, however, if we are to really love at all, then we’re going to have to set our minds to loving those things which we find disagreeable. Its either that, or hardly have any love at all. The great hearted person looks upon America – warts and all – and still says, “I love you”. Just as a good man will say of his wife that she is beautiful, even if her prime was some time ago – just as a kindly person will observe the flawed, remember his own flaws, and then seek out what is wonderful amongst the flaws, and build on that. If we’re to suspend our love of country – our patriotism, that is – until such time as our country exactly suits us, then we will wait forever, and never get what we want. To hold to Mr. Rothschild’s view is to hold a view common to a petulant child, but not something a mature mind concerns itself with.

I, on the other than, do love America – even Mr. Rothschild, and those like him. I wouldn’t dream of having an America without them – they are mine, and so I love them, even as I hope they’ll eventually change their views. I love this land not because it is perfect, but because it has much good in it, and I’ll concentrate on that and seek to expand that, in order that this land I love becomes more lovable over time, even though it will never through human agency become entirely lovable.

From the Associated Press:

Obama, McCain’s Democratic rival in the race for the White House, also lists bipartisanship as a congressional credential. A recent Associated Press-Yahoo News poll showed about 40 percent of the electorate believes both men would work across party lines.

Even so, none of the examples cited by Obama’s aides, beginning with a bill to secure nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union, placed the Illinois lawmaker at odds with the leaders of his own party or gave significant offense to outside interest groups aligned with Democrats.

Not so, McCain.

The Arizona Republican “took on his own party’s leadership, and that takes enormous courage,” says former Rep. Martin Meehan of Massachusetts, a Democrat who worked closely with McCain for years on the campaign finance legislation that Bush reluctantly signed into law. He added that such defiance can often lead to retaliation by the leadership.

“He’s a tough adversary. He’s a very effective legislator,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said in an interview.

As a longtime member of his party’s leadership, McConnell has often borne the brunt of McCain’s bipartisanship, yet he said he has never seen him cross an imaginary line into foul territory.

There is one very good reason why Obama has not strayed from the leftwing base of the Democratic party: No Democrat who strays from the leftwing base in any serious way would ever be the Democratic nominee for President. Why is the feckless Obama the nominee while the very much more qualified Hillary forced to campaign for a man she is, apparently, convinced will lose in November? Because Hillary strayed from the left – she voted for the war and then, much worse, when the left demanded that all Democrats who so voted denounce their vote, she refused. Oh, she went as close to the wire as she could – but somewhere deep inside Hillary Clinton is someone who isn’t stupid enough to really believe (a) that the war is lost and (b) that its all a corrupt scheme by Bush and the PNAC/Neo-Con/Likud cabal. And so she wouldn’t say she was wrong for casting her vote for the liberation of Iraq. Obama, on the other hand, conveniently denounced the war in 2002, even more conveniently forgot his 2004 support for the war and all through 2006 and 2007 trumpeted the leftist, defeatist line. And so he’s the nominee.

While McCain from time to time angers movement conservatives, we should be happy to take a man who does what he thinks right even at political risk over a man who won’t risk anything. Obama wanted to be a State legislator; then we wanted to be a United States Senator; now he wants to be President and in each step of his rise he’s never – not even once – stuck his neck out beyond the leftwing worldview. There is nothing in Obama which isn’t entirely predictable – from defeatism in Iraq to “windfall profits” taxes on oil, each and every Obama opinion comes right out of central scripting at the leftwing wordshop. In any given situation, anyone with even a cursory knowledge of politics will be able to tell precisely what Obama will say and do – and this is why we conservatives know that the election of Obama means a disaster for the nation.

In these terribly dangerous times, we need a President – like McCain – who will tell it like it is and who will be willing to defy everyone in service of the right policy for the United States of America. We don’t need an Obama who will always seek the blessings of the left before he even opens his mouth.

Here comes the pandering.

Taking a page from President Bush, Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he wants to expand White House efforts to steer social service dollars to religious groups, risking protests in his own party with his latest aggressive reach for voters who usually vote Republican.
Obama contended he is merely stating long-held positions — surprising to some, he said, after a primary campaign in which he was “tagged as being on the left.”

In recent days, with the Democratic nomination in hand and the general election battle with Republican John McCain ahead, Obama has been sounding centrist themes with comments on guns, government surveillance and capital punishment. He’s even quoted Ronald Reagan.

One can only guess what kind of faith-based programs he’s for:

Score one for Life, and one against Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood:

(CNSNews.com) – South Dakota may enforce a law that requires doctors to provide pregnant women with a written statement saying, “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,” a federal appeals court ruled last Friday.

In Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit voted 7-4 to strike down a 2005 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for South Dakota.

The injunction had prevented a statute – requiring abortion providers to tell women, in writing, that an abortion would terminate the life of a “living human being” – from taking effect. The decision by the appeals court reversed the injunction and remanded it to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The lawsuit, filed by Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, required the court to consider whether the definition of human being should include “the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation.”

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds and Attorney General Larry Long, representing the state, argued against Planned Parenthood in the suit, providing evidence that the embryo or fetus is “whole, separate, unique and living.”

The court’s ruling said, “Planned Parenthood submitted no evidence to oppose that conclusion.”

The court cited a bioethicist’s affidavit, submitted by Planned Parenthood, which stated that “to describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or environmental evidence interrupts its gestation.”

Dear readers, when faced with the Truth of what an abortion is, the pro-abortion, pro-death lobby has no moral leg to stand on. Unlike a pile of wood, which can become a chair, a table, or part of a home, a developing embryo can only become more and more of what it already is–a human being.

Congratulations to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals for having the cajones to face up to that truth.

I’m still pulling for Bobby Jindal to be with McCain, but Sarah Palin would do just fine, too.

Discuss the Veepstakes – will it make a difference? Who is best for Obama? For McCain?

Obama’s surrogates are out there on the hustings trying to say that Obama always said the “troop surge” would work – don’t believe it for a moment:

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” (MSNBC’s “Response To The President’s Speech On Iraq,” 1/10/07)

“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 1/14/07)

“But I did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run- up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place there.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 1/10/07)

“But right now what we have is, I think by all accounts, a disaster unfolding in Iraq . We all have a responsibility, Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the White House, to make sure that we can come up with the best strategy. I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum — military and civilian, conservative and liberal — expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we’re going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it’s not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq .” (MSNBC’s “Reaction To The State Of The Union Address,” 1/23/07)

“And what was striking to me in listening to all the testimony that was provided, was the almost near unanimity that the president’s strategy will not work. The almost near unanimity among experts on the Middle East and Iraq that the president’s strategy would not work. I was further struck by a consensus among the majority of witnesses that I heard — and, you know, I was not in every minute of every hearing — that we needed to, rather than escalate our troop levels, we actually needed to de-escalate; that, consistent with what the Iraq Study Group had stated, only by indicating in a strong fashion to the Iraqi government that we will not be there in perpetuity will we be able to change the dynamic and force the Shia, Sunni and Kurds to make the political accommodations that are required in order for us to bring some cessation to the violence that exists there. So, what’s striking to me is, at least, outside of politics, consensus seems to be building. It certainly is built among the American people. It is built among the experts in the area. And what remains, then, is the need for us to act.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 1/24/07)

Again and again and again Obama clearly and without qualification stated his view that the surge wouldn’t work and he backed up his view by citing alleged expert testimony stating that it wouldn’t work. There’s no two ways about it – Obama committed himself from the start to the position that the surge would not work. Now that it has worked and Obama is essentially being forced to acknowledge it he is choosing the standard Democratic tactic when faced with gross error – lie, lie and then lie some more. We can’t let Obama get away with this – he owns defeat in Iraq and can’t claim the slightest bit of credit for the fact that we are now winning.

Not only is it disgusting that Obama is trying to slither out of his 2007 defeatism but this attempt shows, if we needed more proof, that Obama is manifestly unfit to be President. A President is a person who must be willing to take the hard decision even if they are unpopular and who must be willing to endure the slings and arrows to ensure that the required things are done – Obama is proving himself a feather blown upon the winds of fashion and motivated entirely by a desire for personal power and prestige.

McCain advocated the surge even before President Bush did – heck, even when I thought the surge wouldn’t be necessary, McCain was out there saying it was. Kudos to McCain for perceiving correctly what needed to be done and more honor to him for staking out a position which was very unpopular at the time it was implemented. McCain, just in this alone, has shown that he has what it takes to be President – in the test of leadership, McCain has passed with flying colors, while Obama is still trying to copy the answers off the smart kid in the room.

Eventually, will even the kook left have to admit they were wrong about Iraq?

The streets of Baghdad are back in business. The teashops are busy. The shops and markets are bustling.

After years when there seemed to be no end to the city’s trauma, people are feeling more confident.

Why, even property prices in Baghdad are rising. According to one estate agent we spoke to, they have doubled in the past four months.

Yes, things are better in Baghdad.

But before we get too carried away, it is important to stress that the improvements, while real, are plainly very brittle.

As US officials readily concede, comments about “breakthroughs” and “corners being turned” are premature…

…it was not simply American force of arms which made the difference.

The US commander in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, adopted a new approach.

It is instructive to read the “Commander’s Counterinsurgency Guidance” which was issued recently to all US forces in Iraq.

These are some of the headings:

“Serve the population: give them respect: gain their support.”

“Live among the people: you can’t commute to this fight.”

“Walk: stop by, don’t drive by: patrol on foot and engage the population.”

“Promote reconciliation: we cannot kill our way out of this endeavour.”

By and large, that is what the Americans have attempted to do and, by and large, it appears to be working.

From a peak last summer, when security incidents were occurring at the rate of well over 1,000 a week, there has been a steady decline until now they are, according to the Americans, at their lowest point for four years.

Our magnificent troops under an inspired commander and working side by side with Iraqis who want a chance to live and build in a free Iraq have been doing what the left – led by Obama and his Democrats – said was impossible. In fact, Obama and his Democrats were assuring us 18 months ago not that things were bad, but that the game was up and the only thing for us to do was run out of Iraq with our tail between our legs…admit we were whipped by a ragged bunch of terrorists and run-of-the-mill criminal goons. Nothing doing said John McCain – we needed to double down and show what we can do when we set our mind and our magnificent military to the task. The rest, as they say, is history.

The cowardice, opportunism and rank defeatism of the Democrats since 2007 should convince everyone that they must be kept from the levers of power. While John McCain has his flaws – as we all do, being human – and while the GOP can (and must) improve itself mightily, the plain fact of the matter is that McCain and the GOP are far more capable of exercising American power than Obama and his Democrats are.

In response to the attacks on McCain’s military service, Obama said the following yesterday:

“For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.”

But, when asked today if Weasel Clark should apologize for his attack on McCain’s military service, he had a much different attitude.

REPORTER: Do you not feel that Clark owes McCain an apology?

SEN. OBAMA: I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine.

I guess the real question is why Obama couldn’t have simply answers, “Yes, Clark owes McCain an apology.”

For someone who has made a point that “words matter,” he should also realize that a lack of words can matter too.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: And the Obamaniacs just keep doing it:

So I too honor John McCain. And, like General Clark, I acknowledge his sacrifice for his country. But being a prisoner of the Vietnamese and serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee does not automatically qualify one for the position of Commander-in-Chief — understanding risks, gauging your opponents and being held accountable does. We must end this glib obeisance to sacrifice and ask deeper questions: is a man who sings “bomb, bomb, bomb … bomb, bomb Iran” a man who understands risks? Is a man who says that we must keep our troops in Iraq until we achieve an ill-defined “victory” really know how to gauge America’s opponents. If we want to hold people accountable, then let’s stand behind my friend Wes Clark — and hold John McCain accountable for what he’s said. – Lt. General Robert Gard (Ret.), Vets for Obama, on the kook-left hate-site Daily Kos

I’m sorry, but as Barack Obama has said before, words matter, and Wesley Clark’s despicable attack on John McCain’s service demonstrates the Obama campaigns desperation. Make no mistake about it, Clark was speaking as a surrogate for Obama’s campaign. Obama can’t take those words back, and it’s pathetic that Obama, for all his self-righteous rhetoric about words mattering and judgement, he seems to think that he can make up for various misjudgments and missteps by writing it off as a boneheaded mistake, or by coming up with some longwinded, manufactured excuse that’s suppose to make it okay.

Word matter, Obama. Clark’s attack on the service and patriotism of John McCain is beneath the dignity of a presidential campaign. A simple “disavowing” of Clark’s comments isn’t enough.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: And Senator McCain shows real class:

“If that’s the kind of campaign that Senator Obama and his surrogates and supporters want to engage in, I understand that,” he said. “But it doesn’t reduce the price of a gallon of gas by a penny” or do anything else to help Americans.

He added a moment later, “I know that General Clark’s comment is not an isolated incident. I have no way of knowing what involvement Senator Obama has in that issue.”

UPDATE II, by Mark Noonan: Clark’s comments have raised a lot of military ire:

The Obama campaign’s disgraceful attacks on John McCain’s military service are unworthy of the ‘new politics’ Barack Obama claims to represent. John McCain has proven his leadership and courage by putting his country first in the most trying of times, refusing early release from prison and standing strong with his fellow POWs. Barack Obama should realize that these tactics have no place in this campaign, and he can make that clear by denouncing these reprehensible comments. – Colonel Tom Moe, former inmate of the “Hanoi Hilton”

As a Marine pilot who served in Vietnam , I am deeply concerned about the disgraceful remarks from Barack Obama’s campaign surrogate, Gen. Wesley Clark, regarding John McCain’s military service. John McCain is proud of his record of always putting the country first from his time in the Navy, in Vietnam , and through to today. Being in command of a military squadron, regardless of whether the country is at war or peace, requires the true leadership that is necessary when assuming total responsibility for the well-being of the men and women in one’s unit. John McCain’s military experiences solely qualify him to be Commander-in-Chief when compared to any other candidate running for President of the United States .

Having gone down in a helicopter myself in Vietnam , I know firsthand what is required to stay cool under fire. When John McCain was shot down, there is no doubt that he was in total control of the situation and made all the right decisions under fire. I personally feel betrayed by Gen. Clark’s statements against John McCain. And when Barack Obama allows his surrogates to attack John McCain’s military record, it simply proves that Barack Obama is to be nothing more than a typical politician who will say anything to get elected. – Colonel Jack Jackson, veteran of 600 combat missions in Vietnam

Senator John McCain is an American hero and an inspiration to those of us who have served our country, faithfully and fully, in times of war. He understands sacrifice like only a wounded war veteran and former POW could. At a time when fewer and fewer Americans know what it is like to serve in our armed forces, Senator McCain’s experience will be immeasurable when he is elected President. Barack Obama’s willingness to allow his campaign to smear Senator McCain’s service is an insult to all of us who have worn the uniform. – Master Sergeant Terry Benson, 24 year Air Force veteran

In 2004, protesters at the Democratic National Convention were put into a “free speech cage,” in order to keep them contained and away from delegates.

It looks like they’re planning similar infringements on free speech for their convention in Denver.

The fence around the public demonstration zone outside the Democratic National Convention will be chicken wire or chain link, authorities revealed in U.S. District Court today.

That may allow protestors to be seen and heard by delegates going in and out of the Pepsi Center during the convention.

But the American Civil Liberties Union and several advocacy groups have filed an amended complaint to their lawsuit against the U.S. Secret Service and the city and county of Denver that says protestors and demonstrators may have their First Amendment rights violated by security restrictions.

The ACLU has said it wants to avoid the conditions that existed during the 2004 convention in Boston, where protesters were caged, infuriating First Amendment advocates.

The first phase of the lawsuit asked the court to compel the city and the Secret Service to disclose the information on protest restrictions.

What really gets me about this is that back in 2004, liberals accused the Bush campaign of kicking out protesters from campaign rallies, while all attempts by Democrats to limit the free speech of protesters who oppose them aren’t criticized at all.

Just goes to show you howl little the Democrats think about the Constitution.