Tag: Afghanistan

Uh-Oh: McChrystal Says, ‘If they don’t give me what I need, I am outta here!’

Posted on

This not good at all…..

WASHINGTON — Six months after it announced its strategy for Afghanistan, the Obama administration is sending mixed signals about its objectives there and how many troops are needed to achieve them.

The conflicting messages are drawing increasing ire from U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and frustrating military leaders, who’re trying to figure out how to demonstrate that they’re making progress in the 12-18 months that the administration has given them.

Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn’t ready for it.

In the last two weeks, top administration leaders have suggested that more American troops will be sent to Afghanistan, and then called that suggestion “premature.” Earlier this month, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that “time is not on our side”; on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged the public “to take a deep breath.”

The White House didn’t respond to requests for comment. Officials willing to speak did so only on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly.

In Kabul, some members of McChrystal’s staff said they don’t understand why Obama called Afghanistan a “war of necessity” but still hasn’t given them the resources they need to turn things around quickly.

Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy that the McChrystal they know would resign before he’d stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy.

“Yes, he’ll be a good soldier, but he will only go so far,” a senior official in Kabul said. “He’ll hold his ground. He’s not going to bend to political pressure.”

via Military growing impatient with Obama on Afghanistan | McClatchy.

I think Obama had better get with the program here and make some decisions. Time might not be an option.

Others: Long War Journal, BLACKFIVE, Pajamas Media and Weasel Zippers

Obama quips to Letterman ‘I was black before the election’

Posted on

Heh. I loved David Letterman’s Reaction to that Statement; it was like “Oh man… where do I go from here?”


Watch CBS Videos Online

Quote:

Addressing suggestions that recent criticism of his health care reform efforts has been grounded in racism, President Obama this afternoon quipped, “I think it’s important to realize that I was actually black before the election.”

The comment, which the president made in an afternoon taping of CBS’ “The Late Show,” promoted laughter from the audenice and this response from host David Letterman: “How long have you been a black man?”

Mr. Obama said the notion that racism is playing a role in the criticism, which has been voiced by former President Jimmy Carter and others, is countered in part by the fact that he was elected in the first place – which, he said, “tells you a lot about where the country’s at.”

“One of the things that you sign up for in politics is that folks yell at you,” the president said, noting that “whenever a president tries to bring about significant changes, particularly during times of economic unease, there is a certain segment of the population that gets very riled up.” He pointed to the experiences of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan as examples.

I have to give the President a little credit. He does have a good sense of humor; and he did handle the question of racism in a very classy manner. He also said something that I thought was very true and that was when you get into politics, you do sign up for people to yell at you. So, I think he knows what he got into and at least he is honest about it.

He also expressed some honesty, which is a bit of nice change:

The appearance was not all jokes; Mr. Obama said that the economy was improving but that employment was lagging behind.

“Unemployment is still going to be a big problem for at least another year,” he said, though he insisted the economy would emerge “stronger than before.”

On Afghanistan, the president said that he will not make a decision whether to send more troops until he decides on a strategy following a comprehensive review. The top commander in Iraq has warned that more troops are needed for the U.S. to have a chance to emerge victorious.

Asked by Letterman about the wisdom of the war in Iraq, Mr. Obama said, “because Saddam Hussein is not there, that’s a good thing. He was somebody who certainly had aspirations to cause a lot of trouble.”

Mr. Obama added, however, that “that given the enormous stakes we had in Afghanistan, we should have finished the job there.”

I cannot honestly find fault in any of what I quoted. The President is not making any rapid fire decisions. He is taking his time with the situation and that is a change of pace. As I wrote before; the whole Iraq and Afpac War is a huge challenge and making off the cuff decisions is not a wise move. I just hope he does not lose his nerve to fight.

Leaked Report: More Forces in Afpak War or ‘Mission Failure’

Posted on1 Comment

No matter how you slice this; this report does not look good at all.

Now before I quote this; let’s be really clear here. Bob Woodward is not known for telling the truth. Some of the tall tales told in his books, even made the harshest Bush critics wonder, if he was not making stuff up.

Anyhow, Quoting the Washington Post:

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict “will likely result in failure,” according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”

His assessment was sent to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Aug. 30 and is now being reviewed by President Obama and his national security team.

McChrystal concludes the document’s five-page Commander’s Summary on a note of muted optimism: “While the situation is serious, success is still achievable.”

But he repeatedly warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians.

However, there are some problems in that region and they are:

The assessment offers an unsparing critique of the failings of the Afghan government, contending that official corruption is as much of a threat as the insurgency to the mission of the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, as the U.S.-led NATO coalition is widely known.

“The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF’s own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government,” McChrystal says.

The result has been a “crisis of confidence among Afghans,” he writes. “Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.”

McChrystal is equally critical of the command he has led since June 15. The key weakness of ISAF, he says, is that it is not aggressively defending the Afghan population. “Pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the people we seek to protect. . . . The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves.”

McChrystal continues: “Afghan social, political, economic, and cultural affairs are complex and poorly understood. ISAF does not sufficiently appreciate the dynamics in local communities, nor how the insurgency, corruption, incompetent officials, power-brokers, and criminality all combine to affect the Afghan population.”

Coalition intelligence-gathering has focused on how to attack insurgents, hindering “ISAF’s comprehension of the critical aspects of Afghan society.”

In a four-page annex on detainee operations, McChrystal warns that the Afghan prison system has become “a sanctuary and base to conduct lethal operations” against the government and coalition forces. He cites as examples an apparent prison connection to the 2008 bombing of the Serena Hotel in Kabul and other attacks. “Unchecked, Taliban/Al Qaeda leaders patiently coordinate and plan, unconcerned with interference from prison personnel or the military.”

The assessment says that Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents “represent more than 2,500 of the 14,500 inmates in the increasingly overcrowded Afghan Corrections System,” in which “[h]ardened, committed Islamists are indiscriminately mixed with petty criminals and sex offenders, and they are using the opportunity to radicalize and indoctrinate them.”

and….:

McChrystal identifies three main insurgent groups “in order of their threat to the mission” and provides significant details about their command structures and objectives.

The first is the Quetta Shura Taliban (QST) headed by Mullah Omar, who fled Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and operates from the Pakistani city of Quetta.

“At the operational level, the Quetta Shura conducts a formal campaign review each winter, after which Mullah Omar announces his guidance and intent for the coming year,” according to the assessment.

Mullah Omar’s insurgency has established an elaborate alternative government known as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, McChrystal writes, which is capitalizing on the Afghan government’s weaknesses. “They appoint shadow governors for most provinces, review their performance, and replace them periodically. They established a body to receive complaints against their own ‘officials’ and to act on them. They install ‘shari’a’ [Islamic law] courts to deliver swift and enforced justice in contested and controlled areas. They levy taxes and conscript fighters and laborers. They claim to provide security against a corrupt government, ISAF forces, criminality, and local power brokers. They also claim to protect Afghan and Muslim identity against foreign encroachment.”

“The QST has been working to control Kandahar and its approaches for several years and there are indications that their influence over the city and neighboring districts is significant and growing,” McChrystal writes.

The second main insurgency group is the Haqqani network (HQN), which is active in southeastern Afghanistan and draws money and manpower “principally from Pakistan, Gulf Arab networks, and from its close association with al Qaeda and other Pakistan-based insurgent groups.” At another point in the assessment, McChrystal says, “Al Qaeda’s links with HQN have grown, suggesting that expanded HQN control could create a favorable environment” for associated extremist movements “to re-establish safe-havens in Afghanistan.”

The third is the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin insurgency, which maintains bases in three Afghan provinces “as well as Pakistan,” the assessment says. This network, led by the former mujaheddin commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, “aims to negotiate a major role in a future Taliban government. He does not currently have geographical objectives as is the case with the other groups,” though he “seeks control of mineral wealth and smuggling routes in the east.”

Overall, McChrystal provides this conclusion about the enemy: “The insurgents control or contest a significant portion of the country, although it is difficult to assess precisely how much due to a lack of ISAF presence. . . . “

The insurgents make money from the production and sale of opium and other narcotics, but the assessment says that “eliminating insurgent access to narco-profits — even if possible, and while disruptive — would not destroy their ability to operate so long as other funding sources remained intact.”

While the insurgency is predominantly Afghan, McChrystal writes that it “is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan’s ISI,” which is its intelligence service. Al-Qaeda and other extremist movements “based in Pakistan channel foreign fighters, suicide bombers, and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.”

McCrystal’s Plan is:

The general says his command is “not adequately executing the basics” of counterinsurgency by putting the Afghan people first. “ISAF personnel must be seen as guests of the Afghan people and their government, not an occupying army,” he writes. “Key personnel in ISAF must receive training in local languages.”

He also says that coalition forces will change their operational culture, in part by spending “as little time as possible in armored vehicles or behind the walls of forward operating bases.” Strengthening Afghans’ sense of security will require troops to take greater risks, but the coalition “cannot succeed if it is unwilling to share risk, at least equally, with the people.”

McChrystal warns that in the short run, it “is realistic to expect that Afghan and coalition casualties will increase.”

He proposes speeding the growth of Afghan security forces. The existing goal is to expand the army from 92,000 to 134,000 by December 2011. McChrystal seeks to move that deadline to October 2010.

Overall, McChrystal wants the Afghan army to grow to 240,000 and the police to 160,000 for a total security force of 400,000, but he does not specify when those numbers could be reached.

He also calls for “radically more integrated and partnered” work with Afghan units.

McChrystal says the military must play an active role in reconciliation, winning over less committed insurgent fighters. The coalition “requires a credible program to offer eligible insurgents reasonable incentives to stop fighting and return to normalcy, possibly including the provision of employment and protection,” he writes.

Coalition forces will have to learn that “there are now three outcomes instead of two” for enemy fighters: not only capture or death, but also “reintegration.”

Again and again, McChrystal makes the case that his command must be bolstered if failure is to be averted. “ISAF requires more forces,” he states, citing “previously validated, yet un-sourced, requirements” — an apparent reference to a request for 10,000 more troops originally made by McChrystal’s predecessor, Gen. David D. McKiernan.

The most sobering part is this:

Toward the end of his report, McChrystal revisits his central theme: “Failure to provide adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties, higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission failure.”

There is doubt about it; this war is not going to be a cakewalk, just like Iraq was not. The question on everyone’s mind is this, will President Obama have the political nerve to keep fighting this war?  To defeat all of these groups and the ultimate goal —– Al Qeada.

Peter Feaver over at Foreign Policy’s Blog Shadow Government offers the following assessment:

1. It is not good to have a document like this leaked into the public debate before the President has made his decision. Whether you favor ramping up or ramping down or ramping laterally, as a process matter, the Commander-in-Chief ought to be able to conduct internal deliberations on sensitive matters without it appearing concurrently on the front pages of the Post. I assume the Obama team is very angry about this, and I think they have every right to be.

2. A case could be made that the Obama team tempted fate by authorizing Bob Woodward to travel with General Jones (cf. “whisky, tango, foxtrot”) in the first place and then sitting on this report for nearly a month without a White House response. You cannot swing a dead cat in Washington without meeting someone who was briefed on at least part of the McChrystal assessment, and virtually every one of those folks is mystified as to why the White House has not responded as of yet. The White House will have to respond now, but I stand by my first point: leaks like this make it harder to for the Commander-in-Chief to do deliberate national security planning.

3. Without knowing the provenance of the leak, it is impossible to state with confidence what the motives were. For my part, I would guess that this leak is an indication that some on the Obama team are dismayed at the White House’s slow response and fear that this is an indication that President Obama is leaning towards rejecting the inevitable requests for additional U.S. forces that this report tees up. By this logic, the leak is designed to force his hand and perhaps even to tie his hands.

4. The leak makes it harder for President Obama to reject a McChrystal request for additional troops because the assessment so clearly argues for them. The formal request is in a separate document, apparently, but it is foreshadowed on every page of the Initial Assessment. Presumably, the McChrystal assessment and request is shared by Petraeus and, I am told, also by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That does not make it irrefutably correct, but it does make this issue now the defining moment in civil-military relations under President Obama’s watch. Obama has the authority and the responsibility to make a decision that runs counter to what his military leaders are requesting, but it is a very difficult thing for him to do.

5. The toughest part in the report from the point of view of the Obama White House is the twin claim that (i) under-resourcing the war could cause the war to be lost, and (ii) the resources need to show up in the next year. The former puts the responsibility for success/failure squarely on the desk of the President and the latter, because of the long lead times needed to send additional resources into the theater, says that failure could result from choices made or not made in the next few weeks. And it said that a few weeks ago.

6. Paradoxically, however, the report does not make it impossible for President Obama to reject the likely military request for additional forces. Because the report is so candid about all of the challenges we face in Afghanistan, many of the arguments against additional forces are substantiated somewhere in the report: the myriad failures of the Afghan government, the self-defeating restrictions imposed on NATO forces, etc. The only anti-surge argument that I have not seen substantiated (though I read this quickly, so I may have missed something) is the extraordinarily seductive one that suggests we can afford to simply walk away from Afghanistan and conduct “off-shore-counter-terrorism-operations” indefinitely.

7. This document will remind anyone who worked on the issue of the internal debate over the surge strategy in Iraq circa Fall 2006. While the Bush administration Iraq Strategy Review did not produce a 66-page report that leaked, we covered much this same terrain and wrestled with many of the same thorny trade-offs and uncertain bets. The report is basically calling for an Iraq-type surge gambit, asking President Obama to do more or less what President Bush did in 2007: (i) change the strategy, (ii) adequately resource the new strategy, and (iii) overcome the strong domestic political opposition to doing (i) and (ii). If successful, the McChrystal assessment claims that this will buy time to allow for a safer eventual shift back to a train and transition strategy. It will not win the war in the short-run, but it will shift the trajectory of the war and allow for the possibility that our side can prevail in the long run. This is eerily similar to how the pro-surge group within the Bush team thought of the Iraq surge.

The question that one must ask. Is this all really worth it? The normal reflexive answer would be yes. Because we must acknowledge that those people that died in those Trade Centers, The Pentagon, and in PA; died because our Government’s attitude towards Terrorism and National Security had become lax. —– In other words, we were caught with our proverbial pants down.

My question to the President is this; are you sir, going to allow a group of far left wing, socialists dictate your foreign policy? Are you going to allow the Nation to drift back into a September 10’th mentality?  I mean, because the FBI has already nabbed a group of people in New York; that had intentions to make another strike. Because I can tell you right now, Mr. President; If you abandon this fight, they will strike again, and next time, it will not be with planes. It will be much worse. That is not Neo-Conservative hype; that is, my friends, reality of the situation at hand.

What needs to happen is this; President Obama needs to wrap up in Iraq; as soon as possible. Once this is complete, President Obama needs to refocus his strategy on this war.  It is not going to be easy. Some say this could be President Obama’s Vietnam. Which I happen to think is a line of balderdash. Vietnam failed; for one, because the media outright LIED about our progress in the Tet offensive and because President Johnson did not have the gonads to stand up to the left wing of the Democratic Party and inform them, that they did not run the White House and that he did!  Instead he folded and said he would not run for reelection. This gave way to embarrassing defeat of the South in Vietnam and caused us to have to leave in shame.

President Obama must stand up and lead. He must shrug off the left wing of his Party and fight this war, until these issues are resolved. Yes, there will be casualties; this happens in war, get used to it people. We must stand and fight; other wise, the 2,996 people who perished, will have perished in vain.

Others from all sides of the political area: ABCNEWS, The Cable, Marc Lynch, The Atlantic Politics Channel, Swampland, New York Times, Salon, Guardian, msnbc.com, The Washington Independent, The Daily Dish, FiveThirtyEight, Counterterrorism Blog, David Rothkopf, Hullabaloo, Registan.net, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Mudville Gazette, The New Republic, Newshoggers.com, MoJo Sections, Foreign Policy, BBC, The Washington Note, At-Largely, Achenblog, Daily Kos, Classical Values, Think Progress, The Atlanticist, The Foundry, Danger Room, Weekly Standard, LiveWire, Wonk Room, democracyarsenal.org, Below The Beltway, SWJ Blog, PoliBlog, The Anchoress, The BLT, Hot Air, Flopping Aces, MoJo Blog Posts, Center For Defense Studies, Christian Science Monitor, The Faster Times, EU Referendum, The Opinionator, Crooks and Liars, Outside The Beltway, BLACKFIVE, QandO, Political Punch, Commentary, Shakesville, Truthdig, Firedoglake, Washington Monthly, Don Surber and Taylor Marsh and more via Memeorandum

President Obama honors Jared Monti

Posted on

I realize that this Blog entry is not going to do much for my Conservative Credentials; not that I honestly give two flips about that. But I happened to notice this little entry over at the White House Blog.

<p>President Barack Obama stands with Paul and Janet Monti as he posthumously awards their son, Army Sgt. 1st. Class Jared C. Monti from Raynham, Mass., the Medal of Honor for his service in Afghanistan during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009.</p>

President Barack Obama stands with Paul and Janet Monti as he posthumously awards their son, Army Sgt. 1st. Class Jared C. Monti from Raynham, Mass., the Medal of Honor for his service in Afghanistan during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009.

Quote:

Today the President awarded Sergeant First Class Jared C. Monti, U.S. Army, the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty in the East Room of the White House. Sergeant First Class Monti received the Medal of Honor posthumously for his heroic actions in combat in Afghanistan, which the President recounted alongside his parents Paul and Janet Monti.

Here is a portion of the President’s comments, of which you can read the full thing here.

That’s when Jared Monti did what he was trained to do. With the enemy advancing — so close they could hear their voices — he got on his radio and started calling in artillery. When the enemy tried to flank them, he grabbed a gun and drove them back. And when they came back again, he tossed a grenade and drove them back again. And when these American soldiers saw one of their own — wounded, lying in the open, some 20 yards away, exposed to the approaching enemy — Jared Monti did something no amount of training can instill. His patrol leader said he’d go, but Jared said, “No, he is my soldier, I’m going to get him.”

It was written long ago that “the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet, notwithstanding, go out to meet it.” Jared Monti saw the danger before him. And he went out to meet it.

He handed off his radio. He tightened his chin strap. And with his men providing cover, Jared rose and started to run. Into all those incoming bullets. Into all those rockets. Upon seeing Jared, the enemy in the woods unleashed a firestorm. He moved low and fast, yard after yard, then dove behind a stone wall.

A moment later, he rose again. And again they fired everything they had at him, forcing him back. Faced with overwhelming enemy fire, Jared could have stayed where he was, behind that wall. But that was not the kind of soldier Jared Monti was. He embodied that creed all soldiers strive to meet: “I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade.” And so, for a third time, he rose. For a third time, he ran toward his fallen comrade. Said his patrol leader, it “was the bravest thing I had ever seen a soldier do.”

They say it was a rocket-propelled grenade; that Jared made it within a few yards of his wounded soldier. They say that his final words, there on that ridge far from home, were of his faith and his family: “I’ve made peace with God. Tell my family that I love them.”

And then, as the artillery that Jared had called in came down, the enemy fire slowed, then stopped. The patrol had defeated the attack. They had held on — but not without a price. By the end of the night, Jared and three others, including the soldier he died trying to save, had given their lives.

I’m told that Jared was a very humble guy; that he would have been uncomfortable with all this attention; that he’d say he was just doing his job; and that he’d want to share this moment with others who were there that day. And so, as Jared would have wanted, we also pay tribute to those who fell alongside him: Staff Sergeant Patrick Lybert. Private First Class Brian Bradbury. Staff Sergeant Heathe Craig.

And we honor all the soldiers he loved and who loved him back — among them noncommissioned officers who remind us why the Army has designated this “The Year of the NCO” in honor of all those sergeants who are the backbone of America’s Army. They are Jared’s friends and fellow soldiers watching this ceremony today in Afghanistan. They are the soldiers who this morning held their own ceremony on an Afghan mountain at the post that now bears his name — Combat Outpost Monti. And they are his “boys” — surviving members of Jared’s patrol, from the 10th Mountain Division — who are here with us today. And I would ask them all to please stand. (Applause.)

Like Jared, these soldiers know the meaning of duty, and of honor, of country. Like Jared, they remind us all that the price of freedom is great. And by their deeds they challenge every American to ask this question: What we can do to be better citizens? What can we do to be worthy of such service and such sacrifice?

Sergeant First Class Jared C. Monti. In his proud hometown of Raynham, his name graces streets and scholarships. Across a grateful nation, it graces parks and military posts. From this day forward, it will grace the memorials to our Medal of Honor heroes. And this week, when Jared Monti would have celebrated his 34th birthday, we know that his name and legacy will live forever, and shine brightest, in the hearts of his family and friends who will love him always.

May God bless Jared Monti, and may He comfort the entire Monti family. And may God bless the United States of America.

For all of the criticisms that I level at President Obama; this is not one of them. I truly believe that President Obama “Gets it”; when it comes to loss of life in the Military. More so, than even President Bush. I believe sometimes, that Bush used the Military as a photo prop or even to boost his ratings. To me, as a writer who was and still is, far way from the beltway, it always seemed like Bush was posing, when appearing with Military personnel. I could be wrong on this, but I highly doubt it. Obama does genuinely care. I can tell this. He respects the men and woman who risk and ultimately give their lives for the Military and more broadly for their Country. To me, that strikes me as Obama being a “Truman Democrat”. I truly believe that Obama dislikes the notion of war. But he also understands that War is necessary for the preservation of the Republic.  I also notice that Obama has stepped up to the plate in the Afghanistan war. The President knows that the situation in that country is extremely complex; even more so now, that it was when Bush ordered the invasion.

It has also been observed that President Obama has shrugged off the far left’s insistence that President should pull our ground troops out of Afghanistan and solve the Afghanistan war though diplomacy. Something that this writer highly disagrees with. There is only one way to deal with terrorists and Al-Qeada and that is with the end of gun or a missile. President Obama knows this and has; so far, stepped up the plate and made it quite clear that he intends to carry that fight on.  As a Conservative and someone who believes that the war on terror is a reality, this is a welcome quality as a President and I personally commend him for that.

This is not to say that I do not have issues with his domestic polices. I do. I disagree with a good portion of it. But his policy when it comes to the war on terror and his respect for our Nation’s Military is not something you will find me criticizing at all.

So, on the behalf of this Conservative writer and supporter of our Nation’s Military; Thank you Mr. President and please, Keep it up.

Late Night at the PB Pub Presents: Eric Burdon and the Animals

Posted on

Disclaimer: I do not, in any way, shape or form intend this posting to be considered to be any sort of disrespect towards our Nation’s Military. Those guys are out there on the battlefield so that people, like Eric Burdon; can be free to express his opinions and write songs like this one.  Having said all that; I do wish this to be considered a political commentary towards our Nation’s leaders, former and current; on sending our Nation’s finest into wars that cannot be won. I also intend it to be a commentary on unjustified war. I make zero apologies for this.

Liberals now accuse us of being terrorists

Posted on3 Comments

That is correct, we are now the terrorists; that is according to the far left African-American wing of the Democratic Party.

I am, of course, referring to this absolutely asinine rant here.  I would quote that bunch of nonsensical prattle on this blog and respond to it directly; but I am afraid that my emotions would get the best of me and I would say something that I might regret later. Leave it to the idiotic Socialist Liberal Democrats, to turn a fact finding mission, about an admitted Communist, who said everything and I do mean everything; under the damn sun about white people into a “White vs Black” witch hunt; starring of course; Glenn Beck.

The truth is folks, this had nothing to do with “White vs Black” and everything to do with Right vs Wrong. In fact, here is Glenn Back’s Statement about Van Jones’s ouster:

The American people stood up and demanded answers. Instead of providing them, the Administration had Jones resign under cover of darkness. I continue to be amazed by the power of everyday Americans to initiate change in our government through honest questioning, and judging by the other radicals in the administration, I expect that questioning to continue for the foreseeable future.

That is the truth about what really happened people. The Socialist Liberals seem to forget something; and that is that not every person under the Sun voted for Barack Obama. Some that voted for radical extremists like Bob Barr, some that wrote in the name of the crazy extremist Texas Representative Ron Paul, some that actually held their noses and voted for Moderate Republican John McCain and his V.P. Pick Caribou Barbie; er, um, I mean, Sarah Palin.

That my friends is 42% of this Country of ours. Yes, President Obama won fair and square; there is no disputing that.  But he won the election for President of the United States of America and NOT President of the Democratic Party; NOT President of extreme socialist wing of the Democratic Party, not President of the Socialist States of America, not the President of the African-American wing of the Democratic Party —- But the United States of America. President Barack Obama is the American people’s President and we, as Americans, have a obligation as United States citizens to hold this President accountable for every last damn decision that he and congress make.  The same was true with George W. Bush and the Republican Congress and the same is and will be true with THIS President and this Congress.

We just cannot allow, nor can we afford, to become complacent in our attitude towards politics and Washington D.C. and most importantly about the Obama Administration.  That is what the Obama Administration wants; everyone just to tune out and let them handle everything. Let me be the first to say this; as a Independent Conservative writer, and not as a Republican —– that complacency is what got this Country in this mess in the first place. What am I talking about? I am referring to the last nine years in the Country. Back in 2000. There was an election, we elected George W. Bush, then the day after the election, the America said, “Okay, that is over with!” and they proceeded to tune out politics and went back to their normal lives.  Then 9/11 happened and everybody paid attention again, and that lasted about a month or so, maybe two or three; but by the time December of 2001 had rolled around the majority of America had moved on or lost interest.  Then 2003 rolled around, George W. Bush sort of declared war against a Country that had zero to do with the 9/11 attacks. All because upon intelligence that we now know was horribly bad. Again, everyone paid attention, for a while, maybe for about a month or so. But then, the story got to be old hat and the majority of Americans lost interest. Then came 2006, the Iraq War turned ugly — troops started dying in mass; and the American people got angry and started demanding answers. Changes were made, idiots were fired, and a magical surge happened and everything was fine again, and again the people tuned Washington D.C. and the President out, again.

Then came the 2008 elections, which really started way back in 2007. I know, I blogged about them; daily. The American people started, ever so slowly to pay attention again, weary from the Bush Years, people wanted change. Then in the middle of the horse race in 2008, the economic bubble burst and burst bad it did. This is when everyone and I do mean everyone began to pay attention.  What would President Bush do? What would become of our Nation? The American people actually said, “What will become…of me?” Bush did what any beltway Conservative does in time of crisis; he became a Democrat and started trying to prime the pump. He threw money at the Bankers and very quickly left the scene. By this time, the damned world was watching and some, were scratching their heads and wondering; “What on earth are these people doing to our Nation?”

Then the day of reckoning arrived; November 4, 2008. The Nation was in dire need of change and a new President; and the American people did what our Constitution guarantees us —- A right to vote.  During the election, Conservatives like myself, raised our objections to the Democratic forerunner and his policies.  But, the majority of the American people either were not listening or just simply did not care. They wanted a change in direction and boy did they ever get one!

Six months have passed now and Obama’s mantra of Hope and Change is now soured and the very people that voted for him are not shaking their fists in disgust at this President. His policies are failing, tax cheats have bailed, a Communist has resigned over furor of statements made by him. His own very base is now turning on him.

Where am I going with this? What is my point?

My point is this. The American people are actually paying attention to what you do, Mr. President. Do not deceive yourself into believing that you can just do what you damned well please. Your backroom deals with big pharma will come back to haunt you in 2012. Your feeble attempt to fix this economy has essentially failed.  You hired a racist-baiting, bigoted, Communist for a “Green Jobs Czar.” The American people, with the assistance of the Conservative Blogosphere; you know those 42% of Americans that did not vote for you. —- have become well informed of you actions sir. We will continue to fight for what we believe in, Mr President.

We are the loyal opposition. We have nothing to apologize for….. and we’re not going any damned where. Mr. President we elected you and we will make sure, that you are doing your job. We cannot ever afford to tune out, nor will we ever do so again.

Others:  American Power, Pajamas Media, Hot Air, Riehl World View,  AmSpecBlog, Power Line

Yes, The AP was stupid….

Posted on

Yes, They were.

That is all.

However, Villainous Company makes a very valid point:

When you decided to allow journalists to photograph the coffins of returning service members at Dover, you broke down a barrier that should have been left intact.

Since the dawn of time, human societies have had taboos. They exist for a reason. They exist because some things simply ought to be unthinkable, and nothing short of a total ban will prevent some people from pushing the envelope.

The media have contended, over and over, that the photographing of coffins and dead bodies and wounded soldiers or Marines thrashing about in agony are necessary to help the American people understand the cost of war. Evidently, the availability of graphic war movies depicting fountains of blood and oozing gore are insufficient visual aids.

The Associated Press took all of one hour to balance the newsworthiness of graphic photos of a fellow human being’s last moments against the wishes of Lance Corporal Joshua M. Bernard’s grieving family. In the end, compassion and human decency gave way to the profit incentive. Of course, the AP will claim they were motivated by elevated concerns that the American public, despite being exposed to violent and graphic footage on TV, cable, and at the movie theater on a daily basis, are too stupid to comprehend that explosions often result in shredded body parts, blood, agonizing pain, and death.

If that makes no sense to you, you’re not alone.

So if we buy into the notion that we need to see the results of violent episodes to truly understand their consequences, does this mean the media will now begin showing graphic footage of rape victims who have been beaten or tortured or cut to shreds by their attackers?

I tend to believe that Obama and the head of the Military are regretting their decision to allow photos of the war dead. Then again, maybe not. As we all know, liberals do hate our Military. Did not always used to be like that. There was a time when Democrats were the hawks and the Conservatives were the peace lovers. That all changed after 1964; with the rise of the “New Conservative” movement or Neo-Con as it sometimes badly called.

Somewhere, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and possibly Dick Cheney are smiling.

Well, it is nice to know that the UAE has our backs… I think

Posted on

Although, many people do not know this or do not want to hear it. But much of the financing for 9/11 came out of the UAE.

Anyhow, there’s this:

The United Arab Emirates has seized a ship carrying North Korean-manufactured munitions, detonators, explosives and rocket-propelled grenades bound for Iran in violation of United Nations sanctions, diplomats said.

The UAE two weeks ago notified the UN Security Council of the seizure, according to the diplomats, who spoke on condition they aren’t named because the communication hasn’t been made public. They said the ship, owned by an Australian subsidiary of a French company and sailing under a Bahamian flag, was carrying 10 containers of arms disguised as oil equipment.

The council committee that monitors enforcement of UN sanctions against North Korea wrote letters to Iran and the government in Pyongyang asking for explanations of the violation, and one to the UAE expressing appreciation for the cooperation, the envoys said. No response has been received and the UAE has unloaded the cargo, they said.

The UAE and Iranian missions to the UN didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. The Financial Times reported the weapons seizure earlier today.

via UAE Seizes North Korean Weapons Shipment to Iran (Update2) – Bloomberg.com.

This is what happens when you do the whole “Carrot and Stick” approach to countries like North Korea and Iran. They simply find ways to go around you.  I really believe that the United Nations really needs to rethink their strategy with Iran. Because it is obvious to this Conservative writer, that Iran has no intention of abiding by the rules.  I am not saying that it is time for war with Iran; not at all. At least not with our Country leading the charge. Because, in case anyone has not noticed, We are a bit occupied ourselves. I believe some of the other countries in that region need to step up and put a stop to this nonsense, once and for all.

Blackfive asks some very important questions:

Now this brings up all kinds of questions. How did the UAE find out? Did we know? Did we tell them? Inquiring minds want to know. Also how does this affect our global tyrant outreach project? Clenched? Unclenched? Hmmm

Those are some good questions. I would also like to know, who tipped off the Financial Times people? I also wonder, what will our feckless fearless leader’s next move will be? Because you know good and well that the Liberal base is not going to approve of him going into Iran or North Korea; even if Obama ordered a small support group to go in and assist any other countries that wanted to invade either Country, the base would totally turn on him. I mean, hell, the left is desperately wanting to pull us out of Afghanistan and Iraq; before the job is even done. They have been trying to do that for years. Do you think they would just sit idly by and allow President Obama to take us into another Military conflict? I do not think so. I mean, “Hope and Change” can only get a man so far.  Especially when it comes to the very far left. I mean, they’re already calling Obama a fascist in some quarters of the left as it is already.

Either way this is going to be a very interesting development and it will be interesting to see how Obama handles the situation and it will be interesting to see how the far socialist/liberal Left reacts to Obama’s actions.  I also would like to see what the Liberal Media’s reaction will be to this story and to how Obama reacts to it as well; will they be just as critical to Obama as they were Bush? or will they continue to give Obama the “free ride” that they have given him so far? It should be very interesting.

Jack Hunter makes a good point

Posted on

At one point, I had written that I was not going to publish this man’s videos anymore; and I do not make a habit of it. His comment about our Military over on The American Conservative‘s Blog called “Post Right” was the end for me.

However, this video does make a good point and so, I will post it; with a comment at the end.

(Source)

I posted this, because I happen to agree with Jack’s stance on progressive policy on economics. But because I am “Fair and Balanced”, I will tell you, what others will not about the “Paleo-Conservative” or the “Taft” wing of the Republican Party as it is called by some. If it were left to these guys; such as Jack Hunter and his two hero-like personalities like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul —- America would have never went to war with Germany, at all. Hitler would have allowed to exterminate the Jews. Something that I am told Pat Buchanan has said that he wished happened, when he was around some friends once; which goes back to the old school catholic hatred of the Jews and their religion. Further more, most people of the Paleo-Conservative strand believe that Abraham Lincoln was a traitor. Not only to the White Man; but also to the South for the way he conducted the Civil War. Which Jack claims was not about race. (Wink Wink) But rather about Centralized Government.

So, while Jack might be correct about his thesis on the economic policy; his association with the bigoted “Old Right” is to be noted and for this, I feel, his credentials are marred.

The Obligatory C.I.A./Eric Holder/Leon Panetta posting

Posted on

I really did not want to post about this; as I have made my opinions clear on this before.

I believe that this whole release of documents, ensuing investigation and so forth are being done to placate the far left, in response to the President’s dropping poll numbers and because he is losing the war on the health-care front. In words, he is going to drop the Public Option and he is trying to throw some “red meat” to his liberal base.

The question is, will it work? I highly doubt it, there are two things that far lefty liberals want and that is health-care for all and Dick Cheney in Jail. (and Bush too, if they could get it…) Obama is trying to give them one; and not the other. That strategy, I feel, will not work. That is because liberals want both of these things and not just one or the other. Making the far left choose between the two; will only cause the far left progressives to turn against Obama.

Again, this is just another promise, in a long list of promises, that he has broken.

Remember when he said this?

What a difference six month makes! Talk about throwing the C.I.A., who is keeping America safe, along with the Armed Forces; under the bus!

Unbelievable. Just farking unbelievable.

Others: Power Line, , Weekly Standard, And So it Goes in Shreveport, Wizbang,  Blue Crab Boulevard, BREITBART.COM,   Gateway Pundit,  Neptunus Lex, Law Blog, Gawker,  Macsmind, , The Corner on National …, The Foundry,,  Weekly Standard,Patterico’s Pontifications, Flopping Aces, Gateway Pundit, The Plum Line, Weekly Standard, Commentary and Stop The ACLU, Hot Air,

The Left’s plans to desecrate 9/11

Posted on

This is unbelievable.

This comes via The American Spectator:

The Obama White House is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry.

This effort to reshape the American psyche has nothing to do with healing the nation and everything to do with easing the nation along in the ongoing radical transformation of America that President Obama promised during last year’s election campaign. The president signed into law a measure in April that designated Sept. 11 as a National Day of Service, but it’s not likely many lawmakers thought this meant that day was going to be turned into a celebration of ethanol, carbon emission controls, and radical community organizing.

The plan is to turn a “day of fear” that helps Republicans into a day of activism called the National Day of Service that helps the left. In other words, nihilistic liberals are planning to drain 9/11 of all meaning.

A coalition including the unsavory left-wing pressure group Color of Change and about 60 far-left, environmentalist, labor, and corporate shakedown groups participated in the call. Groups on the call included: ACORN, AFL-CIO, Apollo Alliance, Community Action Partnership, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, 80 Million Strong for Young American Jobs, Friends of the Earth, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Mobilize.org, National Black Police Association, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Council of Negro Women, National Wildlife Federation, RainbowPUSH Coalition, Urban League, and Young Democrats of America.

Of course, the annual commemoration of the 2001 terrorist attacks belongs to the entire nation, but President Obama and the activist left don’t see it that way. They view the nationwide remembrance of the murder of 3,000 Americans by Islamic totalitarians as an obstacle to winning over the hearts and minds of the American people.

Unreal, just farking unreal. The left will stop at nothing to mar the Memory of those who were killed at the hands of terrorists. Maybe it is because the left sympathizes with terrorists.

Be sure an sign up for the 2,996 project. I have. My memorial will post on September 11’th. I finished it a few weeks ago, the post is set to drop on September 11’th at 7:00a.m. EST. It will be a barn burner, I assure you on that. We must, as Conservatives; be the one’s to keep the real meaning of September 11’th alive. Do not allow the Liberals to steal this one from America.

Update: AllahPundit isn’t buying it. Big Surprise there! 🙄 This is the same guy who’s got it bad for Megan McCain. Shocka! 😛

Update #2: Pamela Geller is NOT happy about this at all. 😮

Others: Michelle Malkin, Right Wing Nut House, Dr. Melissa Clouthier, Cold Fury, Gateway Pundit and Weasel Zippers

Video: THE RULES OF THE GAME: Just War Doctrine

Posted on

Synopsis:

Thou Shalt Not Kill—perhaps the most famous moral commandment in the western world. And yet Judeo-Christian religious leaders have also created a doctrine that can justify killing—commonly known as Just War Doctrine. What sort of military action does Just War Doctrine permit and what sort does it proscribe? Is America’s campaign against terrorism a just war?

The Hoover Institute’s Website.

Taliban Leader in Pakistan Is Dead

Posted on

Score one for our Boys! wOOt!

Baitullah Mehsud, the main leader of Pakistan’s fearsome Taliban movement, was killed Wednesday in a C.I.A. drone missile strike, two Taliban fighters said Friday, though American and Pakistani officials could not confirm the reports.

Mr. Mehsud has been considered Pakistan’s public enemy No. 1 and was blamed for the assassination of the former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and scores of suicide bombings, including the truck bomb that exploded at the entrance to the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, leaving more than 50 people dead last September.

If confirmed, Mr. Mehsud’s death could be a significant blow to the militant networks inside Pakistan that in recent years have posed a direct challenge to the authority of the state, increasingly destabilizing the country.

But analysts and current and former Pakistani officials here warned that Mr. Mehsud’s death did not necessarily mean less violence for Pakistan, or that the Taliban movement in Pakistan would disappear, though for the time being its reach and unity could be diminished as Mr. Mehsud’s followers choose another leader.

“This is a major setback for the Taliban in Pakistan,” said Mahmood Shah, a former security chief in the tribal region. “He was the leader. The successors are all non-entities.”

via Taliban Leader in Pakistan Is Reportedly Killed – NYTimes.com.

Long War Journal Confirms it:

Baitullah Mehsud, the feared leader of the Pakistan Taliban, is believed to have been killed during the Aug. 5 airstrike in South Waziristan.

Faqir Mohammed, the deputy leader of the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan and the commander of the Bajaur Taliban, told Sky News that Baitullah was killed in a strike that also killed Baitullah’s second wife.

An aide to Baitullah identified as Kafayatullah, as well as another unidentified Taliban leader in South Waziristan, also said that Baitullah had been killed in the attack.

“I confirm that Baitullah Mehsud and his wife died in the American missile attack in South Waziristan,” Kafayatullah told the Associated Press late last night.

Baitullah was said to have been buried near the village of Nardusai. “Some who had reportedly seen his body said that it had been half-destroyed by the blast,” the BBC stated.

Pakistan’s Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, said intelligence believes that Baitullah was killed in Wednesday’s strike but the government wants to confirm the reports. US intelligence officials also believe that Baitullah was killed.

Reports indicate Baitullah was visiting a compound owned by Ikramuddin Mehsud, Baitullah’s father-in-law, in the village of Zanghra in the mountains near Baitullah’s home town of Makeen. The airstrike also reportedly killed one Baitullah’s two brothers and seven of Baitullah’s bodyguards.

US intelligence sources contacted by The Long War Journal last evening had initially believed Baitullah survived the attack.

Countdown to limp wrist liberals and “Old Right” Conservatives saying, “We got him, can we leave now?” In 5…..4….3…2….  I mean, these are the ones who say that Our troops are battlefield terrorists. So, this would not be a big surprise.

Anyhow, this is a good hit and it will only help in our continuing battle against the terrorists in Afghanistan.

Others: The Jawa Report, Newsweek, The Long War Journal,, PrairiePundit,  and Power Line

Secretary Clinton: Iran’s Pursuit of Nukes ‘Futile’

Posted on1 Comment

If you would have told me, a year ago, that I would be praising Hillary Clinton for something she said; I would have asked you what kind drugs you were on and to share some of it with me! (I kid about the drugs, but this still is a very good story.)

First the Video:

Quote:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that Iran will never achieve its goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon, declaring to Tehran: “Your pursuit is futile.”

“What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions, that if you’re pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we’re not going to let that happen,” Clinton said.

“First, we’re going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran — nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed — it is something that we view with great concern, and that’s why we’re doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening. … We believe, as a matter of policy, it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.”

As a security summit in Thailand earlier this week, Clinton raised the possibility of a “defense umbrella” over the Middle East to protect other nations from a nuclear-armed Iran, marking the first time a senior administration official has publicly broached the prospect of the Persian nation succeeding in building a nuclear weapon.

Clinton said the Obama administration might still engage with Iran’s regime, even though she thinks the people there “deserve better than what they’re getting.”

via Hillary Clinton: Iran’s pursuit of nukes ‘futile’ – Mike Allen and Daniel Libit – POLITICO.com.

The only question that I might have is this; Does President Obama agree with this position? Another concern that I have is that this could be a signal of War drums beating. I am sure that the Secretary knows, that our forces are still fighting in Afghanistan and that we do still have forces in Iraq and that the job there is still not entirely done yet.

However, I do commend Secretary Clinton for her tough stance towards Iran’s terrible President and Islamic Oligarchy.

I just hope that President Obama agrees with Secretary Clinton and does not try and back-peddle that stance and play the role of terrorist appeaser. If he does, it would mean the total discrediting of Secretary Clinton and further more of America’s leadership role in the World.

Update: No Quarter, who is a Pro-Hillary liberal Blogger; links in. Hey, we might not agree on politics. But I’ll any kind of linkie love that I can get! 😛 😀

Update #2: John over at Powerline disagrees:

In other words, negotiating with Iran at this time would indeed betray the protesters, but we’ve done this before and want to do it again now.

Fair enough, perhaps. Our experiences with the Soviet Union and China do establish that we have at times negotiated with repressive regimes. But it doesn’t follow that we should negotiate with Iran at this time.

In any event, this much is certain: our negotiations with the Soviet Union and China did not cause either power to eschew nuclear weapons. Indeed, to my knowledge negotiations have never induced any nation that was aggressively pursuing nukes to change its mind. That kind of persuasion takes a massive show of force (Libya and arguably Iraq) or regime change.

Thus, while the administration may have its own motives for negotiating with Iran, there is no reason for Israel to believe that such negotiations will protect Israel’s interest (potentially a life-and-death one) in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Clinton’s case that Israel should rely on U.S. attempts to pursuade Iran not to go nuclear, rather than taking matters into its own hands by attacking Iran, is not a powerful one.

President Barack Hussein Obama is now saying, “Victory” not a goal in Afghanistan

Posted on

What more can we expect from a far lefty liberal who was friends with people like Bill Ayers?

First, The Video:

The Story via FOX NEWS:

President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but “victory” in the war-torn country isn’t necessarily the United States’ goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.

“I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur,” Obama told ABC News.

The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn’t so clearly defined, he explained.

“We’re not dealing with nation states at this point. We’re concerned with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Al Qaeda’s allies,” he said. “So when you have a non-state actor, a shadowy operation like Al Qaeda, our goal is to make sure they can’t attack the United States.”

The United States and Afghanistan are struggling to shore up security in the country, amid increasing violence. The Obama administration this year stepped up U.S. military operations in the country as the U.S. military presence begins to wind down in Iraq.

“We are confident that if we are assisting the Afghan people and improving their security situation, stabilizing their government, providing help on economic development … those things will continue to contract the ability of Al Qaeda to operate. And that is absolutely critical,” Obama told ABC News.

Want to know why Obama feels this way? This might have something to do with it:

Rising casualties in Afghanistan are raising doubts among U.S. allies about the conduct of the war, forcing some governments to defend publicly their commitments and foreshadowing possible long-term trouble for the U.S. effort to bring in more resources to defeat the Taliban.

Pressure from the public and opposition politicians is growing as soldiers’ bodies return home, and a poll released Thursday shows majorities in Britain, Germany and Canada oppose increasing their own troop levels in Afghanistan.

Europeans and Canadians are growing weary of the war — or at least their involvement in combat operations — even as Obama is shifting military resources to Afghanistan away from Iraq.

The United States, which runs the NATO-led force, has about 59,000 troops in Afghanistan — nearly double the number a year ago — and thousands more are on the way. There are about 32,000 other international troops in the country.

The new U.S. emphasis on Afghanistan has raised the level of fighting — and in turn, the number of casualties. July is already the deadliest month of the war for both U.S. and NATO forces with 63 international troops killed, including 35 Americans and 19 Britons. Most have been killed in southern Afghanistan, scene of major operations against Taliban fighters in areas that had long been sanctuaries.

The leaders of the largest contributors to the coalition find themselves having to justify both their reasons for deploying troops and their management of the war effort. Britain, Italy and Australia are among those adding forces ahead of Afghanistan’s Aug. 20 presidential election.

They say a Western pullout at this time would enable a resurgent Taliban to take over the country and give Al Qaeda more space to plan terror attacks against the West. Some emphasize humanitarian aspects of their missions, like development aid and civilian reconstruction.

So, in other words, Obama is now going to begin to try an appease the other Countries. Just like he wanted to appease the terrorists in Iraq as well. This President is nothing more than an appeaser of terrorists. Think it might have something to do with his middle name? Perhaps.  Am I racist for say this? I hardly think so. I mean, the man is not a person that believes in going to war against our enemies, he would rather negotiate with them.

Simply put Obama is one of the radical Neo-Liberals who want to forge alliances with those who hate our Capitalistic system. The man was friends with Domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, who was and still is a sworn Communist. What else can we expect from this President?

Now, to be fair, Obama does have one valid point; and that is that we are not fighting actual Nations, but rather a network of Terrorists, that will stop at absolutely nothing to destroy our Nation. You would think that President Obama would love this Country; seeing that he has taken full advantage of our lovely capitalist system and has done very well at it, that he would stand up and tell these other Nations, “You are either with us or against us, in Afghanistan!” However, we are not dealing with a real God-Fearing, American-loving, President. We are dealing with a Far-Leftest Liberal Buffoon, who hates America’s values and hates the principles that this Country was founded upon.

Something tells me, that the next four years in America are going to some of the worst, when it comes to our Foreign Policy. God help us all.

Others: NewsBusters.org, BLACKFIVE, Stop The ACLU, Sweetness & Light, Commentary, Conservatives4Palin.com, THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, : Mudville Gazette, Don Surber, Clayton Cramer’s BLOG and Weekly Standard

Videos: Captured U.S. Solider in Afghanistan; Fox News Blowhard

Posted on

This comes via the Jawa Report, this is incredibly heart-wrenching to watch:

It quite to hard to watch, when you have douche nozzles like this running their potholes; before we know all of the facts:

Money Quote:

“Nobody in the military is defending this guy, he is an apparent deserter, reports are indeed that he abandoned his buddies, abandoned his post and walked off…On that video he is collaborating with the enemy.

“… if he walked away from his post and his buddies in wartime, I don’t care how hard it sounds, as far as I’m concerned the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and a lot of legal bills.”

You see my problem with this is, we do not know all the facts about this, and already we have idiot Fox News persons calling the guy a deserter. That’s B.S…. Sorry, just the way that I feel.

Update: Uncle Jimbo over at Blackfive sums it up very well:

Boy it’s good to know that we have Ralph out there supervising patrols and making sure there are no breaks in contact i.e. people lagging behind. Hey dipshit, the fact that we have a term like “break in contact” means that it happens. Who the hell is Ralph to call this kid a liar from a TV studio in the US. The first thing we all should do in the absence of solid info, is to give the kid a freakin’ break. He deserves the benefit of the doubt and for jackasses like Peters to start calling him a liar based on a completely inaccurate concept is pathetic.

He may turn out to be a deserter, or an idiot, or a drunk or just screwed in the head and if so there will be plenty of time to call him names. Heck Ralph they may even kill the incompetent liar. But for the time being it would be nice if all the arm chair mouth pieces sat down and had a nice cup of STFU!

Very well put. I have nothing to add. 😎

An Aunt’s Grief

Posted on4 Comments

(H/T MRC)


Watch CBS Videos Online

I wonder, what would Lew Rockwell say now?

A Libertarian Lefty Attacks me….

Posted on49 Comments

Some libertarian leftist slams me on a blog, that brought 40 whole readers over here… 🙄

Anyhow… here’s what the Anarchist wrote:

looks like Lew Rockwell’s strategy of printing non-anarchist essays snagged a state-lover. When Lew showed his true nature, anti-state, this person thought he was being anti-American. Hey, Pat. I love my country, but I hate your government. And so does Lew. When you’re ready to stop pointing guns at people over every little thing, we can talk. But I’m not going to close comments on my blog, like you did on yours. Afraid of a little debate, eh?

via WTF?: Starting to really wonder about Lew Rockwell’s Blog | End the War on Freedom.

3 years ago, when I first started blogging; I would have ripped this person a new one. But seeing that I am a bit more refined than this guy. I will simple answer the questions.

  1. No, I am not a Statist.
  2. If you so hate this Government; which is an extension of this country; so much, why don’t you leave? Nothing is keeping you here.
  3. I will stop pointing Guns at people, when people like the Islamic Terrorists, (I know, Islamic, Terrorist = Redundancy)   that you lefties just love to death, stop trying to kill people.

The whole problem with you lefty anarchists is this, you love chaos, and that chaos is used to forum a vacuum; which is quickly filled by big Government. Which I totally despise. Kinda like I despise the Socialism of your Democratic Cousins. (Again, Democrats, Socialism = Redundancy)

The problem with the puritan stance on the Libertarian foreign policy is that it is rooted in flawed thinking and conspiracy theory. Hence the reason that Ron Paul looked like a damn buffoon. He is absolutely right on Iran and So are you. I give you that; but Afghanistan is another story. Those bastards that flew those planes into the trade centers were not Jews, Not Christians, not anything, but Muslims, Islamic men. Terrorists? The whole damn religion is a religion of war.

The whole idea, that according to the Libertarian idea of foreign policy is that if we are attacked, we should just sit and take it and not do nothing; is idiotic at best. Hence the reason I am not involved in that party, in a formal manner.  I agree with the principles of free enterprise and capitalism. But that party loses me, when they beginning to speak of the federal Government in conspiratorial terms. I just do not believe that the Government is smart enough to do anything, like they believe that it does; much less keep it a secret.

Also, let me say another thing. Libertarians; especially those of the Libertarian left or anarchists is this. They hate our Country and it’s form of lawful Government. In the name of so-called freedom, they commit acts of, yes, terrorism. To further their political agenda. Kind of like Bill Ayers. Yes, that is correct, I said it. Al-Aqaeda and the Libertarian left have much in common. They both hate our Country and our values system, our freedom and our Capitalist system.  It was this same attitude that was on the mind of those who flew those planes into the trade centers. It is a sad thing to say, but it is the truth.

Admittedly, there have been times, when the Federal Government has overstepped it’s bounds. I have blogged about many instances where this has happened. That is why you have Conservatives and Right-libertarians, like myself, who have blogs, like me, that throw up the red flag and bring this sort of nonsense to the attention of the American people. This causes the Government, like in recent times to go, “Ooops! Our Bad!” and make changes to correct those mistakes. This is why people like me believe that big Government is BAD GOVERNMENT! Because of it’s tendency to make very stupid and sometimes horrific mistakes. Case in point; Waco, Ruby Ridge, and so on….

In fact, anyone that has read this blog, more than just coming and read one entry knows; that I am totally anti-centralized Government.  In fact, I, like many of my Southern Paleo-Conservatives believe that Abraham Lincoln was a traitor. Not because he freed the slaves; but because he introduced a centralized form of Government. Not to mention the form of barbarism or as it called today; Terrorism that he inflicted on the south, in a war; that was not even fought remotely fair.

Having said all that……. I did answer his accusations of me not wanting a debate. I do close comments here after 10 days. Because I hate getting comments about something that I wrote like, a year ago and have go back and see what they heck they are talking about. Running a blog is all about being current and fresh. Not about harping on the past. Hence the reason they automatically close. I think he wants a blog fight or a argument. I just don’t desire to debate people that I disagree with; it doesn’t change a damn thing. All it does is cause problems, and I just do not need it, nor want it.

Next time someone tells you that Islam is a Religion of peace; Show them this video

Posted on

The Synopsis of this video:

This is a video of David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi asking questions at Arabfest, Dearborn. The date is June 21st, 2009. There was a booth at the festival which had a banner titled “Islam: Got Questions? Get Answers.” From their table, we picked up a pamphlet claiming that Islam promotes peace. We noticed that it was full of poor logic and errors, so we decided to make a video refuting it. We went to the booth that gave us the pamphlet to give them the opportunity to defend their claims. Security, however, stepped in and forced us to turn off our camera.

We left the booth, received advice from police, and found out that the actions of the security guards were illegal. We went back to the booth to record a potential answer again. Realizing that the Muslims present had no answer, we left.

When we came outside, we were asked some questions by two young men, who had been sent by security to entrap us. While we responded to them, festival security started assaulting us, as you will see in this video. The conclusion of this video is a mob of festival security attacking our cameras, pushing us back, kicking our legs, and lying to the police.

We ask you, is it a coincidence that the city with the highest percentage of Muslims in the United States is the city where Christianity is not allowed to be represented (let alone preached) on a public sidewalk? Is it coincidence that in this city, people will say “No way!” when we say “This is the United States of America”?

Is this what will happen when Islam takes over the United States?

You see Ladies and Gents, THIS is what celebrating diversity does to you. It gets you attacked by Islamic terrorist THUGS! Rick Warren and his purpose driven life, “Let’s love everyone and not judge”, kind of Christianity is just that; it celebrates diversity. Islam, a religion of peace….. What a lie! 😡 This is why, if I ever was going to film, I would go armed. Any security person who approached me and tried to hurt me, would be killed.

Enjoy this video! (Via Gateway Pundit)

WAKE UP AMERICA to the LIE OF ISLAM!

Acts 17 Apologists website.

Change?: President Obama ready to sign order to Executive Order to Allow Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects

Posted on

This broke last night and the Liberal Blogosphere about went nuclear.

Via The Washington Post:

Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

After months of internal debate over how to close the military facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the prison by the president’s January deadline.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that there is no executive order and that the administration has not decided whether to issue one. But one administration official suggested that the White House is already trying to build support for an order.

“Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order,” the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should be prosecuted or released.

The Justice Department has declined to comment on the prospects for a long-term detention system while internal reviews of Guantanamo detainees’ cases are underway. One task force, which is assessing detainee policy, is expected to complete its work by July 21.

In a May speech, President Obama broached the need for a system of long-term detention and suggested that it would include congressional and judicial oversight. “We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can’t be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone,” he said.

Shall we start calling him President George W. Obama? It sure sounds like it. When the Conservatives AND Liberals are calling this plan a disaster; something is dreadfully wrong.

Should be interesting to follow.

As always Memeorandum has the round up.

Iran’s election showdown begins; Neo-Conservatives continue to goad our President

Posted on4 Comments

It appears that the Iranian Islamic powers that be are beginning to clamp down on the dissent in that Country. The New York Times Reports:

TEHRAN — In his first public response to days of mass protests, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sternly warned opposition supporters on Friday to stay off the streets and raised the prospect of violence if the defiant, vast demonstrations continued.

Opposition leaders, he said, will be “responsible for bloodshed and chaos” if they do not stop further rallies.

He said he would never give in to “illegal pressures” and denied their accusations that last week’s presidential election was rigged, praising the officially declared landslide for the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as an “epic moment that became a historic moment.”

He spoke somberly for more than an hour and a half at Friday Prayer to tens of thousands of people at Tehran University, with Mr. Ahmadinejad in attendance. His sermon was broadcast over loudspeakers to throngs in the adjoining streets, and the crowds erupted repeatedly in roars of support. Opposition supporters had spread the word among themselves not to attend.

“Street challenge is not acceptable,” Ayatollah Khamenei said, according to a rendering by the BBC. “This questions the principles of election and democracy.”

There was no immediate response from opposition leaders.

The article continues on and I personally encourage you to read it. This is all shaping up, just as I thought it would. Iran’s supreme leader is calling the shots; as always. This is why I basically removed the green from my twitter account. Because I knew it was pointless to support the protesters in Iran.  The will of the people is just not respected in that country, the will of the Islamic Government is.

Meanwhile, the Wilsonian, Warmongering, and now highly discredited wing of the Republican Party still continues to goad our President in to entering the fray in Iran.  The recently sold Weekly Standard continues it’s pandering to the Zionists abroad:

Fourth, now, today, is another opporunity for President Obama to speak. Mousavi has been threatened, as have the thousands of protesters. The ayatollah offered no conciliatory language for the protesters or the West. There was no talk of redoing the stolen election, or giving Mousavi a seat at the table. Obama has gone out of his way not to “meddle” in this affair, thinking that America’s “meddling” may compromise efforts to negotiate with the Iranian regime going forward.

What has been the reward for America sidelining itself? More condemnations from the regime that Obama wants to negotiate with. That same regime may be on the verge of an even more violent convulsion.

That quote up there is why the American people voted the Neo-Conservatives out of power and put in a outright socialist President. Because of that nonsense quoted up there. As a I said in my Blog entry/column that I sometimes write, America should stay out of the affairs of Iranian Government:

I have noticed that some of my Neo-Conservative counterparts have been goading the President of the United States for not taking a more vocal stance against the Iranian Government and by proxy, the Islamic leaders of that Country.  In case that sounds a bit familiar, these people are the same people played cheerleader to President Bush’s decision to go into Iraq.  Hence my reasoning for disliking the Neo-Conservative wing of the Republican Party; Not because of some idiotic Hatred of the Jews; but because of the Wilsonian, warmongering stance of those types of Conservatives.

As a Paleo-Conservative, my feelings about Iran are this that the United States of America should stay out of the affairs of the Iranian Government.  If the Iranian people want to overthrow that Government, let them do it.  If the Iranian people want to topple that Islamic regime, let them do it.  The less the United States becomes involved in that situation, the better.  The same kind of meddling with the affairs of other Governments has gotten us into other situations in the past.  The list is quite long — Korea, Vietnam, Both Iraq Wars, World War I, and so on.

After I wrote that entry, I realized that I had not stated well enough as to why we should not get involved with the situation in Iran. The answer simply is this; say the Iranian people do overthrow the Islamic Government in that Country, an anti-Islamic Revolution, if you will; then there is a Democratic or Parliamentary Government established there. If at anytime that Government is overthrown and an Islamic Government is placed back into that Country; guess who will get the blame for overthrowing the previous Islamic Government? The United States will; that’s who!  The Neo-Conservatives, in their blind and quite foolish desire to go to war with every country that rejects their foolish Zionist agenda; have forgotten one thing, Arabs hate us already, and they will really hate us, if the United States is seen to be meddling in their internal affairs.  It is too bad that this Country, and more specifically the Republican Party and it’s Wilsonian, Neo-Conservative wing have not learned that lesson. Had they learned it long ago; those trade center towers would still be standing.

Others:  BBC, Telegraph, MoJo Blog Posts, Wall Street Journal, The Lede, The Cable, Democracy in America, Maggie’s Farm, Michelle Malkin, New York Magazine, Jihad Watch, Hot Air, democracyarsenal.org, Washington Post, Wonk Room, Outside The Beltway, Wolf Howling, The BLT, A Blog For All, Salon, On Deadline, The Daily Dish, The Washington Independent, ATTACKERMAN, Gateway Pundit, FP Passport, Danger Room and The Huffington Post and more via Memeorandum

The Southern Avenger Says “Obama and Cheney Make Us Less Safe”

Posted on

In the ongoing debate between President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney on torture, former CIA terrorism expert Michael Scheuer points out how both leaders’ refusal to address U.S. interventionism as the primary catalyst for terrorism makes us all “less safe.”

The Southern Avenger’s Blog

The Southern Avenger @ Taki’s Magazine

Terrorist plot to blow up Jewish Synagogues in the Bronx thwarted

Posted on

This news broke last night, but I was not in any mood to write about it.

Video Report, showing NY’s Mayor Bloomberg:

Four men were arrested Wednesday night in what the authorities said was a plot to bomb two synagogues in the Bronx and shoot down military planes at an Air National Guard base in Newburgh, N.Y.

The men, all of whom live in Newburgh, about 60 miles north of New York City, were arrested around 9 p.m. after planting what they believed to be bombs in cars outside the Riverdale Temple and the nearby Riverdale Jewish Center, officials said. But the men did not know the bombs, obtained with the help of an informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, were fake.

The arrests capped what officials described as a “painstaking investigation” that began in June 2008 involving an F.B.I. agent who had been told by a federal informant of the men’s desire to attack targets in America. As part of the plot, the men intended to fire Stinger missiles at military aircraft at the base, which is at Stewart International Airport, officials said.

“This latest attempt to attack our freedoms shows that the homeland security threats against New York City are sadly all too real and underscores why we must remain vigilant in our efforts to prevent terrorism,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said in a statement. The mayor was expected to appear at 6:45 a.m. Thursday at the Riverdale Jewish Center morning services, joined by Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.

The charges against the four men represent some of the most significant allegations of domestic terrorism in some time, and come months into a new presidential administration, as President Obama grapples with the question of how to handle detainees at the Guantánamo Bay camp in Cuba.

Rabbi Jonathan I. Rosenblatt, the senior rabbi at the Riverdale Jewish Center, a modern Orthodox congregation, said the police informed him on Wednesday evening that his synagogue was a target of the plot, as well as the Riverdale Temple, a Reform synagogue that is a short distance away, on Independence Avenue. The two buildings are about six blocks apart, each with a brick facade. Outside the synagogues on Wednesday night, the streets were eerily quiet.

Rabbi Rosenblatt said in a phone interview that he took the news with “shock, surprise — a sense of disbelief that something which is supposed to belong to the world of front pages and the evening news had invaded the quiet world of our synagogue.”

via 4 Accused of Bombing Plot at Bronx Synagogues – NYTimes.com.

Of course, the Neo-Conservative Blogs are all over this one. A couple of things to point out:

  1. There’s no proof at all, that these guys were connected to any sort of formal terrorist group
  2. They never were able to obtain any sort of real weapons

So, what we have here is a group of wanna-be’s who got caught. This is what, the second time? The first was the much hyped Fort Dix plot; which turned out to be a great deal of nothing. I am sure that the Conservative media and blogs are going to hype this for all it is worth. The liberal-controlled media; hopefully, will take a more reasoned approach to the situation and report the facts, and shy away from the hype.

Do not misunderstand me here. I personally believe that the war on terrorism, as George W. Bush rightfully called it, is quite real. However, I have a hard time believing that this group of bumbling idiots were a part of it formally. If anything, these guys were a group of morons who could not even make a pipe bomb; much less a damn bomb capable of causing any sort of real damage.

As to why they did it. These guys were upset about our involvement in Afghanistan. We can expect to see this sort of a thing, as that War progresses. Now the idiots on the far liberal left will try and say that this is why we should leave Afghanistan. Which any sane, rational person knows is foolish. We should not leave until Osama and his henchmen are dead and Al-Qaeda is formally defeated. Some say this is impossible. I believe nothing is impossible, if it is done correctly. The far left likes to bring up that Russia tried to fight a war in this region and ended up pulling out. I say; apples and oranges. Different kind of a war, and the Russians did not have nearly the Military that we have and the technology that we have today.

The good thing about all this is, that this terrorist cell was broken up and these idiots are going to jail. Thanks to the fine work of our men at the F.B.I. Good show guys, keep up the good work.

Update: …and then there’s the Libertarian conspiracy theorist angle. No wonder the Republicans think that most libertarians are kooks.

The Southern Avenger says “Partisans Make Us Less Safe”

Posted on

How support for both “financial security” and “national security” reveal partisan hypocrisy and make us less safe.

President Obama, The time is now.

Posted on5 Comments

That’s correct, you read that headline right. Enough is enough, the deception and lies needs to stop. I am sure that most of you have been following the internet Meme floating around right now about Nancy Pelosi’s saying that the CIA lied to her about the enhanced interrogations. Well, the accusations just got some serious merit and I do mean huge serious merit.

The Huffington Post is now reporting:

In testimony that could bolster Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claim that the CIA misled her during briefings on detainee interrogations, former Senator Bob Graham insisted on Thursday that he too was kept in the dark about the use of waterboarding, and called the agency’s records on these briefings "suspect."

In an interview with the Huffington Post, the former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman said that approximately a month ago, the CIA provided him with false information about how many times and when he was briefed on enhanced interrogations.

"When this issue started to resurface I called the appropriate people in the agency and said I would like to know the dates from your records that briefings were held," Graham recalled. "And they contacted me and gave me four dates — two in April ’02 and two in September ’02. Now, one of s-GRAHAM-large the things I do, and for which I have taken some flack, is keep a spiral notebook of what I do throughout the day. And so I went through my records and through a combination of my daily schedule, which I keep, and my notebooks, I confirmed and the CIA agreed that my notes were accurate; that three of those four dates there had been no briefing. There was only one day that I had been briefed, which was September the 27th of 2002."

As for the one briefing he did attend, the Florida Democrat said that he had "no recollection that issues such as waterboarding were discussed." He was not, per the sensitive nature of the matters discussed, allowed to take notes at the time. But he did highlight what he considered to be pretty strong proof that the controversial technique was not discussed.

"What struck me…was the fact that in that briefing, there were also two staff members," he said. "As you know, the general rule is that the executive is to brief the full committees of the House and Senate Intelligence committees about any ongoing or proposed action. The exception to that is what is called "covert action," where the president…only briefs the Gang of Eight, which is the four congressional leaders and the four intelligence committee leaders. Those sessions are generally conducted at an executive site, primarily at the White House itself. And they are conducted with just the authorized personnel, not with any staff or any other member of the committee…. Which leads me to conclude that this was not considered by the CIA to be a Gang of Eight briefing. Otherwise they would not have had staff in the room. And that leads me to then believe that they didn’t brief us on any of the sensitive programs such as the waterboarding or other forms of excessive interrogation."

The remarks made by Graham bolster the comments offered by Pelosi on Thursday. The Speaker told reporters that during her briefing session in the fall of 2002 she was not just kept in the dark about the issue of waterboarding, she was assured that it had not been used.

[….]

"The irony," said Graham, "is that the whole series of events in late September of ’02 were concurrent with the CIA’s release of the first classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, which was one of the key factors that led me to vote against the war in Iraq because I thought that their case was so weak. And they were making to the public these very bold statements about how we were in extreme danger if we didn’t move quickly to eradicate Saddam Hussein. The whole, ‘a smoking gun may appear in the form of a mushroom cloud’ kind of argument."

I know some Conservatives that read this blog are going to say something to the effect of, “Oh, that’s the Huffington Post, you cannot trust what they say.” Well, to that I say; Unsinn! (nonsense!) While I may have a personal problem with the way that the comment sections are handled over there and I may have some issues with the political ideology behind that website. I am quite sorry to say it, but news is news; and this my friends is big news.

Since I began blogging back in the winter of 2006; first as a populist and then when my site was hacked, and which at the time this happened; I had began to change my views, and I finally came out as a “Right of Center” or a Traditional Conservative or if you will, a Paleo-Conservative. (As opposed to a Wilsonian, Neo-Conservative; like George W. Bush) I made it quite clear for my disdain of the Wilsonian, Neo-Conservatism of George W. Bush and his Administration. Having said this, I believe it is time that I be the first “Right of Center” blogger to say this:

It is time that the United States of America actually used it’s systems of “Check and Balances.” It is time for a formal investigation into the Bush Administration.

I realize that the Obama Administration wants to avoid a “partisan witch-hunt.” I can respect this, but at this point, this whole mess has gone way beyond the bounds of partisanship, and to the point of an outright betrayal of the American values and of the United States Constitution that the now former President was supposed to swear to uphold.  It is quite obvious to this writer that the now former President of the United States and his Administration fully instructed the C.I.A. to lie to the Democrats in office about the techniques used in the enhanced interrogations that took place after the invasion of Iraq.

Lying to the Congress of the United States of America under the orders of the President of the United States of America for the sole purpose of achieving a political goal, in this case the Iraq War and the supposed “War on terror,” in this writers opinion, amounts to treason of the worst kind. Lying to Congress in order to skirt around the agreements signed by the United States of America and many other Nations, under the accord of the United Nations is a crime and should be dealt with immediately. I am not a huge fan of the United Nations, but agreements are agreements and laws are laws, and it is quite obvious, to this writer, that this previous Administration was not interested in upholding those laws or the United States Constitution or the Geneva Conventions.  Instead the President of the United States ordered the C.I.A. to lie to Congress on it’s use to waterboarding in the enhanced interrogations. This, my friends, is treason. It is wrong, and it should be prosecuted.

I realize that some Conservatives  are going to disagree, that is their prerogative. However, those Conservatives and those who are non-partisan who believe that the rule of law in this Country should be upheld, not just for Conservative Presidents, but also for Democratic Party Presidents; will agree with me in saying that the current attorney should open a full an unbiased investigation into this situation forthwith. The future of this Constitutional Republic depends on it.

Mr. President, The time is now.