U.S. Military talks with Iraq faltering

I have some very mixed feelings on this story….

Via WSJ:

WASHINGTON—Senior U.S. and Iraqi military officials have been in negotiations about keeping some 10,000 American troops in Iraq beyond the scheduled withdrawal of all U.S. forces at year’s end, according to officials familiar with the talks.

But the discussions face political obstacles in both countries, and have faltered in recent weeks because of Iraqi worries that a continued U.S. military presence could fuel sectarian tension and lead to protests similar to those sweeping other Arab countries, U.S. officials say.

A separate drawdown deadline is looming in Afghanistan, where President Barack Obama wants to see a substantial U.S. troop reduction starting in July. Some U.S. commanders have cautioned against making reductions too quickly.

Underlining Obama administration concerns that U.S. forces have been stretched too thin, the White House has put strict constraints on American military involvement in Libya. On Thursday, the U.S. said it was sending armed drones to support operations in Libya, but the administration has stood firm against sending any ground troops.

In Iraq, top U.S. military officials believe that leaving a sizeable force beyond this year could bolster Iraqi stability and serve as a check on Iran, the major American nemesis in the region, officials said. U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Israel have echoed the concern that if the U.S. pulls out completely, Iran could extend its influence.

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, arrived in Baghdad Thursday, urging Iraqi leaders to step up discussions soon if they want U.S. forces to stay beyond the end of 2011.

The timing is critical because the U.S. is scheduled to start drawing down remaining forces in late summer or early fall, and the military would have to assign new units months in advance to take their place.

While American defense officials have made clear they want to leave troops in Iraq, such a decision would require presidential approval. President Obama has yet to indicate publicly whether he would sign off on such a deal.

Mr. Obama could face a political backlash at home if he doesn’t meet his campaign pledge to bring troops home from Iraq. If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq and violence there surges, the president could face tough questions, particularly from Republicans in Congress, about whether the U.S. misjudged Iraq’s capabilities.

As a Conservative, A Paleo-Conservative, as opposed to a Neo-Conservative — but I digress; I have some very mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I would hate to see the United States withdraw from Iraq, it fall into chaos and Iran or some other surrounding Country invade the Country and mount attacks against Israel or even worse, even the United States. On the other hand, I feel that the invasion of Iraq was based on bad intelligence, largely based upon lies told by a man they called curve-ball.

Because of this, I believe we should really get out of there. Because, quite frankly, we have done our jobs. We got rid of Saddam, who was, admittedly hurting his own people and was corrupt as hell.  We have trained the Iraqi army to protect themselves from attack or foreign invasion and uprising from within its own Country. Which it appears they are using to hurt dissidents. So, I really do not understand why we are still there. It appears that the Iraqi Government is most likely worried about our interests there — such as oil.

Either way, this is a very sticky situation; no matter what we do, we are going to be the bad guys. If we stay, we will be blamed for any and all uprisings in the Country. If we leave and that Country falls into chaos; we will be blamed for that too and some idiot with a grudge will try to attack us for allowing his Country to invaded. So, either way, it is going to be a mess for us for a long time to come. 

This is why, that as a Paleo-Conservative, who rejects the foreign policy stance of the Neo-Conservative right; that we as Conservatives and Republicans should rethink our entire foreign policy status. The very idea of exporting freedom to other Nations is foolish on its face. Even David Horowitz, much to his credit, said this:

The Obama Administration, in my view, is the most dangerous administration in American history, and conservatives need to be very clear about the limits and objectives of American power so that they can lead the battle to restore our government to health. To accomplish this, neo-conservatives need to admit they were wrong, and return to the drawing board. They should give up the “neo” and become conservatives again.

Let me go on the record as saying, I wholeheartedly agree. Not so much about the Obama administration; I have yet to see anything that they have done that is overly dangerous to the Country. I do not agree with Obama’s whole, “Spread the Wealth around” nonsense; but Bush was not exactly my idea of a “perfect” President either. So, that whole argument is basically mute with me.  However, I will say that Conservatives do need to get back to their pre-George W. Bush Neo-Conservative lead foreign policy stance. Because quite frankly, our Nation cannot continue on this idiotic path and survive. I mean, tomorrow China could cut us off and we as a Nation would be done. They basically own us and could decide to collect on their debt — Militarily.   If you think about it, that would be quite scary; because what would we fight them with? They own our money and if they decided to defund us, where would we get the money to fight them with?  Again, something to think about.

As for the “other” war in Afghanistan; we need to define that mission and if we cannot do, what we set out to do there — which was to capture or kill Osama Bin Ladin, then we need to get out of that Country. Period. End of Story. Nation Building does not work. It was tried there by the Russians and it failed horribly and almost bankrupted the Russian Government. Establishing Governments and Nations should not be the responsibility of the United States armed forces; it should be the job of NATO and the U.N. — let them deal with that idiotic backward Nation — not us.

Sadly though, the United States Government will not listen to the voice of people like me or you. Who feel that this road to ruin that we are on, is not sustainable. That my friends, is the true crime of this Country.

 

 

Video: What the Neo-Conservatives created in Iraq

First some very disturbing video from Fox News:

Now the story via Fox News Channel:

On April 8th, the same day Defense Secretary Robert Gates was visiting leaders in Baghdad, a 2,500-man Iraqi Army unit raided a compound occupied by Iranian dissidents in Iraq, killing 34 people and injuring 325 others. Eight of those killed were women, according to the United Nations.

The attack occurred just hours after members of the same group in Washington revealed what they said was a previously undisclosed Iranian centrifuge production facility near Tehran — part of Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program.

Camp Ashraf has long served as a sanctuary for members of the anti-Iranian government group known as the People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran (MEK) — a place the U.S. military vowed to protect shortly after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

But with only 47,000 U.S. troops still in the country, and a new Shiite-led government in Iraq looking to bolster relations with Iran, the camp is threatened.

A 12-minute video released by the MEK documents the nighttime attack, beginning with images of Iraqi soldiers driving through crowds of civilians and running men over with trucks and armored Humvees. It shows soldiers firing on and killing groups of unarmed men and women. Gaping wounds suffered by survivors are displayed in detail along with images of the dead laid side by side and covered to the neck by white sheets.

The Iraqi general who led the raid claims the shootings came in response to residents pelting his troops with rocks and throwing themselves in front of his military vehicles.

MEK say those same soldiers are still preventing the wounded from getting proper medical treatment.

MEK was designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. after it carried out an assassination campaign targeting American military leaders in Tehran in the 70’s, as well as later attacking Iranian government targets. Since then the group has become better known for revealing secret production facilities related to the Iranian nuclear program, as it did with uranium enrichment facility in Natanz in 2002.

Sen. John Kerry, head of the Foreign Relations Committee, wants the Iraqis to conduct a full investigation and the called the raid “deeply disturbing” and “simply unacceptable.”

Gates commented on the incident while he was in Iraq, saying he was “concerned” with the reports of deaths and injuries.

And State Department spokesman Mark Toner later condemned the attack, but called it a “sovereign” matter for the Iraqis. By law, the U.S. security agreement with Iraq prohibits the U.S. military from intervening.

A number of former U.S. government officials spoke out about the raid during a conference at the Mayflower hotel in Washington Thursday, many of them calling on the State Department to remove the MEK from its list of terrorist groups.

Michael Mukasey, an attorney general under George W. Bush, called the Iraqi’s guarantee in 2003 to protect the group, “worthless.” He said that unless the U.S. removes the MEK from its terror list the killings will continue.

“What has enabled the Iraqi government — acting in the behest of the Iranian regime — and what enables the Iranian regime itself is this continued designation,”

Mukasey said.

Gen. Wesley Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, linked the incident at Camp Ashraf to current Arab uprisings in the region.

“How can we hope to help those inside Iran who are seeking a more open and liberated government if we can’t help those in Camp Ashraf who are simply asking for protection and an opportunity to live their lives in peace,?” he asked.

Critics say Iran is seizing on distractions in Libya by backing a Shia uprising in Bahrain and helping Syrian President Bashar Assad crack down on government protesters.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, a spokesman for the MEK and the National Council of Resistance Iran, says the Iranians encouraged the Iraqis to attack Camp Ashraf.

“This is a pure crime committed intentionally by the Iraqi government against the Iranian dissidents to do the bidding for Tehran,” Jafarzadeh said.

The last portion of the video provided by MEK shows a 29 year-old Iranian woman, named Isiyeh Rakhshani, delivering a video message to Congress in 2010. Flash to April 8th where she’s shooting cell phone video of the attack on Ashraf. In the final frame Rakhshani’s mother is seen mourning over her dead body.

I really hated to quote that all; but friends, I wanted you all to see it for yourselves; just what Bush and the Neo-Conservative warmongers in the G.O.P. created. My friends, if that does not sicken you to your core, you do not have a damned soul. In 2003, after the euphoria and outrage over 9/11, the United States of America went into a sovereign nation and invaded it; based on the lies of a man, who they call “Curveball.”

America then proceeded to take a Nation, who’s army had, at best, soviet-era tanks and equipment; and proceeded to give them our very best equipment; and now, they are using it on their own damned people. Anyone who believes that Iraq is a free nation; is either lying to themselves or worse. The United States of America basically ousted one dictator and installed a new one in Iraq. Even now the most pro-war Conservative admits that.

It was indeed “Mission Accomplished.” But this mission that we accomplished, was not what Bush and his Neo-Conservative friends had in mind. Now, there are people in Iraq this day, who have lost family; all because a group of Jacobin Democrats decided to invade a Country and further their warped foriegn policy fantasies.

For every action, there is a reaction. For every action taken by the United States Government and its military there is “blowback.” It is an CIA term, and it is very real. Welcome to the middle east 2011; brought you by internationalist Democrats and Neo-Conservatives. We have no one to blame, but ourselves.

The Late Night Music Express presents The Band & Friends

This is dedicated to those who are fighting to be free everywhere.

Quotes of the Day

Bastard. Graham is the sort of scum you get when you blindly vote for Republicans just because there is an R after their name.

Reid, who hates America and her liberties, him I expect to act this way. But Graham likes to call himself a “conservative,” and then, out of that same mouth, say that America might need to “limit” the First Amendment to appease Muslim barbarian savages.

He’s even worse than Reid, because ignoramuses think that Graham actually loves his country and our freedoms, even though his words and actions demonstrate exactly the opposite.

Yet there is a certain segment of “conservatives” who would expect me to vote for Graham no matter what, because he isn’t a Democrat.

I spit on that notion. I will never, ever vote for a candidate who espouses this sort of America-hating, anti-liberty, constitution-loathing crap, no matter what nominal party tag is dangling around his neck.


Charles Johnson is right and here is why

First, go read — I will wait.

Are you finished?  Good.

What is my point?  This:

This right here above, is why I have my comments section on lock down.  Not only do I require people to register, but I also moderate all comments — meaning, I personally read every comment; because of stuff like this right here.  Uncontrolled discussion on blogs leads to things being said, like what Charles Johnson quoted.

However, I do wholeheartedly reject the accusation or at least the inferring that all Conservative blogs have become a swamp of hate against Muslims and or Arabs.  Furthermore, I reject the inferring that all Conservatives/Classic Liberals/Republicans and Christians hate all Muslims and Arabs.  That is collectivism, and it is crap; and I think Johnson is smart enough to know this, I think he is backhanding the blogs mentioned due to his dispute with the persons mentioned.

Having said of that, I do truly believe that there is a minority of persons in the Republican/Conservative/Classic Liberal crowd — who are frankly, bigoted towards Muslims and ultimately Arabs.  Unlike some of the empty-headed idiots on the left, I am not going to make the asinine inferring that they are this way by design.  What I will do is tell you the truth; what has caused this small but very vocal minority to become this way, is because of the attacks on American soil on September 11, 2001.

President George W. Bush, much to his credit did make the much vital distinction between the war on Terrorism and the war on Islam or Muslims or even Arabs.  Not everyone within the conservative circles agreed with him and still does not agree with that mindset to this day; and now that President George W. Bush is out of the picture that vocal minority is becoming louder and much more accepted.  I do not like myself; because it just makes the rest of us look bad.

This of course, is what the C.I.A. calls “Blowback.”  It is the unintended consequences of actions taken by the United States Government.  Most people think of “Blowback” as the angering of the Arab people to cause them to take up arms and commit terrorism against the United States of America – and in fact, it is just that.  However, that is just the one side of “Blowback.”  The other, more tragic and sinister side of “blowback” is the incitement of racial hatred towards Arabs and the religious hatred towards Muslims in General — including those here in the United States of America.

This reason, along with the laundry list of reasons; is why people like myself, Jack Hunter, Ron Paul, Rand Paul and an ever-growing list of Conservatives and Republicans are beginning to question the role of the United States Government involvement on foreign entanglements in foreign lands.

Of course, anyone with a good knowledge of the history of the United States of America and of American politics can tell you, that this is nothing new at all.  In the 1940’s President Franklin Roosevelt, badly wanting to enter into the conflict against the Empire of Japan and against Germany, ordered a blockade of oil from South America that was headed to Japan.  This act by the President plunged Japan into desperation caused Japan to fly across the Atlantic and attack America’s interests in the Republic of Hawaii.  At the time however, Americans were not made aware of the fact that President Roosevelt had done this, as it was kept quiet by the Government.  However, there were people who did know about it.  Winston Churchill was one of those people, and in fact, Churchill warned FDR that doing such things would cause some sort of backlash from the Japanese and, as history shows, he was correct.  The sick and sad part is; to this very day, there are people who still believe that the Empire of Japan attacked the United States for no reason at all.

How this ties into the modern-day events is this; back in 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States Government set up internment camps throughout the United States for the Japanese people.  It is very widely believed that the decision to do this, by the United States Government was brought on by or at the very least fueled Anti-Japanese sentiment in this Country for years, even after the war.  Sadly, there are Conservatives, of whom I will not name; that actually advocated the interment of Muslims and Arab Americans — after the attacks on 9/11.  Thankfully, the Bush Administration did not listen to the foolish ranting of the people who wrote those books.

My point is the following: Conservatives who believe that foreign policy interventionism is wrong, need to take a stand against the internationalist Democrats and the Neo-Conservative foreign policy interventionists and take control of the Republican Party and possibly the Democratic Party away from these warmongers.  Because as long as the United States continues to wage war against Nations that have never really attacked it, this sort of hatred and bigotry will continue.  It is simply the doctrine of “Cause and Effect.”  Nothing ever happens for any reason at all.  It is tragically sad, that the United States and its political parties and their legions of sheep followers, have not figured that simple kernel of truth out.

You say, “What about protecting the Republic?”  I do not have a problem with that.  However, there is a Grand Canyon difference in protecting the Republic and protecting the empire of America; and wise is the person who knows the difference between the two.  Declaring unconstitutional wars and military actions against Nations who have not attacked us; is not defending or protecting the Republic; but rather defending the empire of America and playing useful idiot to foreign lands.  I hope that someday, the grassroots of both of these parties will wrestle control away from these people.  However, if one is to base his hopes on the Republican Party — their recent actions — make that hope, nothing more than a pipe-dream.

 

Video:Guest Voice Jack Hunter on Stereotyping the Old South, Plus Tea-O-Cons

More Great Commentary from Jack Hunter:

And as a Bonus:

Video: Obama’s Libyan War

Seeing that things are changing with Libya; I thought this to be a be very appropriate video: (Via Reason Hit and Run, and Reason TV)

Video: Guest Voice: Jack Hunter on Mark Levin’s Constitution

Once again, Jack Hunter outs a slime ball Neo-Conservative for what he really is; a warmongering pig. Notice in this video, that Jack Hunter points out the differences between Neo-Conservatives —– and Paleo-Conservatives or American Conservatives who are against interventionist foriegn policy. Something that the Republican Party was for prior to the mass exodus from the Democratic Party in 1964. Then these Jacobin Democrats brought their foreign policy with them. That, my friends, is the problem and what brought us George W. Bush.

Video:

Jack Hunter HQ

Video: Blowback from 9/11

The reason why I am posting this, is because I feel it needs to be shown. Andrew Sullivan and Digby the owner of the progressive blog Hullabaloo say this is hate and by definition, yes it is. However, I think more broadly, it is simply blowback; which is an C.I.A. term, from what happened on 9/11. Not only that, these people are simply fed up, with all the recent acts of terrorism happening in America and elsewhere, people are just simply fed up to their wits end.

Again, I do not justify these actions, at all. I simply think progressive liberals need to understand, that people are just fed up.

More than anything else, this just gets up my libertarian nose a bit. What if those were blacks? Ya know? I’m just sayin’

Video:

 

Video: The Reality Report: Taking the Neo-Conservatives to the mat!

In this space, before I post this video; I usually post a disclaimer, because usually, I do not agree with some of the content and ideas presented in this Video report.  However, this week, I am going to forgo the disclaimer. Because a good ninety percent of what is presented here, I absolutely agree with and besides, nothing gives me more joy, than to watch freedom-loving Americans making Neo-Conservative fascists look like the damn fools that they are. Yes, it warms the cackles of my stone cold heart to see those who wish to sell our freedoms out to the altar of “Security” made to look like buffoons.

Very well done gents, very, very, well done. 😀

Having said all that —- here is the synopsis and Video….

Synopsis: In this special CPAC expanded edition of the Reality Report, we go face to face with Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich and present the highlights (and lowlights)! ; Gary Franchi runs into former Saturday Night Live star, Victoria Jackson, and interviews CPAC Chair David Keene about the Defender of the Constitution Award. Gary also meets with Jesse Benton, Ron Paul’s Communications Director, to give you the inside scoop on the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential campaign. Jeff Frazee from Young Americans for Liberty joins the show to tell us how he got turned on to Ron Paul’s message. We meet with Congresswoman Nan Hayworth from New York’s 19th district to ask her about her vote for the Patriot Act. We also ask Ron Paul supporters what it is about his message that inspires them. We also take you to the Jordan Page after party for the release of his new album titled “Liberty”. Angie returns to deliver the headlines with a special report on the Young Americans for Freedom and Truth Squad.TV’s confrontation. We’ll read your email, review last week’s poll results and brand a new enemy of the state.

The Video:

Join the discussion at our RTR Group: http://rtr.org/group/745

Become a Fan of  their Facebook Page:
http://facebook.com/realityreport

Share the Reality Report on Facebook:
http://on.fb.me/realityreport

Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
http://bit.ly/sub-2-rr

Main Websites: http://RTR.org | http://RealityReport.TV

“The Donald” shoots his mouth off, pisses off Neo-Cons

The Video: (H/T The Gateway Pundit)

“The Donald” says:

“I was not a fan of Bush 2 because what happened. He gave us Obama. He did so poorly that he gave us Obama. He got us into a war that we shouldn’t be in that is now the longest running war in the history of the country. The country has been drained of its assets because of it and amazingly Obama is carrying forward and he’s become a warmonger that is even worse than Bush.”

Jim Hoft points out:

Hmm… Let’s see. America’s longest war is the one in Afghanistan. Does Donald Trump really think we should not have attacked Afghanistan? Only Code Pink at the time thought we should not attack Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

And, for future reference…
Obama and Pelosi blew more money on their failed stimulus than George Bush did in ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and bringing democracy to Iraq.

It wasn’t the Iraq War that broke the bank.

The CBO reported that the total cost of the eight-year war was less than the stimulus bill passed by the Democratic-led Congress in 2009 – via FOX News.

If The Donald wants to be taken seriously as a presidential contender he better stop getting his news from the mainstream media.

Looks like “The Donald” needs to polish those talking points just a bit; and possibly stop reading press releases from the Campaign for Liberty website. If he ever wants to appeal to the Neo-Conservative establishment. Just a thought.

Video: The Reality Report: Bypassing the Obama Kill Switch

Please Note: The posting of this video does not constitute an endorsement of views presented in this video. It is simply posted for information purposes only.

—-

In this issue of the reality report: The Egyptian Revolution triggered a government shutdown of the web. Could it happen here? Is the internet kill switch back on the congressional table? If the Feds shut down the web in the United States how could “We the People” get around the internet blackout? Gary Franchi reveals what tools you need to bypass a Government sponsored internet blockade. In this edition, Ron Paul explains the how the Federal Reserve works outside of congress’ constitutional framework. We also look at Senator Chuck Schumer failing miserably while explaining the three branches of government. Beautiful words are uttered from the lips of the Florida attorney general about Obamacare. President and founder of Freedom Law School, Peymon Montehedeh, gives us the details on this years’ Freedom Conference, and we announce a new action taking place in March. We’ll take a dip into the mailbag, deliver the results of last week’s poll, a viewer brands a new Enemy of the State… and Nina returns to deliver the Headlines from the new Reality Report News Room.

http://RTR.org | http://RealityReport.TV

Video: The Reality Report #78: The Homeland becomes the Fatherland

Please note: The posting on this video does NOT constitute support for all of the views therein. It is posted for your education and information.

—–

Synopsis: In the 78th edition of the Reality Report, Gary Franchi draws the direct parallels America shares with Hitler’s Germany and provides the solution to avoiding their terrible fate. We take a look at Ron Paul’s Texas Straight Talk where he discusses what a new found interest in the Constitution could mean for America. CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, Peter Schiff tells us why the Chinese modeled their currency after the U.S. dollar. We also hear from the former U.S. military analyst who is responsible for leaking the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg. He explains the recent war on whistle-blowers. Chris Mathews latest hypocrisy is revealed and Angie breaks down the news. As always we take a dip into the mailbag, reveal the results from last weeks viewer poll and brand a new Enemy of the State.

The Video:

http://RTR.org | http://RealityReport.TV

RTR Group:
http://rtr.org/group/745

Facebook Page:
http://facebook.com/realityreport

Youtube channel
http://bit.ly/sub-2-rr

Share the Reality Report on Facebook:
http://on.fb.me/realityreport

Video: Ron Paul talks with John Stossel on the SOTU address

This comes via The Daily Paul:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Comments are Welcome!

Video: Representative Ron Paul on Wikileaks “Lying is not Patriotic”

Guest Voice: Jack Hunter on The Conservative Case for WikiLeaks

(Via The American Conservative)

Transcript:

Lovers necessarily keep or share secrets. Being in a healthy relationship means achieving a certain level of intimacy, where shared knowledge of each others’ weaknesses and insecurities is protected by a bond of mutual trust. Sometimes lovers might do devilish things that outsiders wouldn’t understand, or shouldn’t be privy to, and this is fine. But by and large, what they do is simply no one else’s business.

But imagine that the man in the relationship kept it a secret that he had other women on the side, kids, a criminal record, venereal disease, and basically betrayed his lover in every way imaginable, unbeknownst to her?

Now imagine a third party felt it was their moral duty to reveal it?

No one questions that governments must maintain a certain level of secrecy, including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who told Time that “Secrecy is important for many things … [but it] shouldn’t be used to cover up abuses.” The entire premise of Assange’s whistleblower organization is this: To what degree is government secrecy justified? And when particular secrets could be damaging to the other partner in the United States government’s relationship — the American people — should these secrets be revealed in the name of protecting the public?

How often does our government use “national security” simply as an excuse to cover up questionable dealings? Reports Time: “in the past few years, governments have designated so much information secret that you wonder whether they intend the time of day to be classified. The number of new secrets designated as such by the U.S. government has risen 75% … . At the same time, the number of documents and other communications created using those secrets has skyrocketed nearly 10 times…”

To say that government must keep secrets is not to say that all government secrets must be kept.

As admitted even by Pentagon officials and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, none of WikiLeaks’ revelations do anything to compromise national security or endanger American lives — but they have wreaked havoc on political life in Washington, D.C. Americans are not supposed to know, for example, that their government bullied and threatened individuals and other governments that might have undermined the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009. The federal government attempting to squelch anyone who might undermine global-warming dogma? Do WikiLeaks’ conservative critics believe revealing this is a “national security” risk?

Americans are not supposed to know, apparently, that behind the scenes Saudi Arabia has been encouraging the U.S. to take military action against Iran. But if we end up going to war with Iran shouldn’t it be in America’s national interest, and not simply as a subcontractor for another country? Asks Fox News’ Judith Miller: “Why should Americans not know that Arab states, often at the top level, have been urging Washington to take military or other drastic action against Iran, while they publicly oppose such action?”

And when did conservatives become so protective of Hillary Clinton? What happened to the days of the “Stop Hillary Express,” when right-wing talk radio portrayed the former first lady as Satan and theorized about all the devious ways in which, if in power, she might conspire to bring down the country? When WikiLeaks revealed that Secretary of State Clinton tried to obtain DNA, fingerprints, credit-card numbers, and other private information belonging to United Nations officials, we learned that Clinton’s style was every bit as mafia-esque as her conservative critics once warned. Yet conservatives now attack WikiLeaks for revealing what they once feared. It should also be remembered that the same conservatives now calling for Assange’s head either ignored or were sympathetic to Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame allegedly at the Bush administration’s behest — a revelation arguably far riskier to our national security than anything ever released by WikiLeaks.

But the worst hypocrisy throughout this controversy has been in conservatives reflexively defending the government and attacking WikiLeaks. Since when have conservatives believed that Washington should be able to shroud any action it likes in secrecy and that revealing government’s nefarious deeds is tantamount to treason? Isn’t it government officials who might secretly work for corporate, ideological or transnational interests — and against the national interest — who are betraying their country?

Interestingly, Wikileaks’ founder espouses the traditionally conservative, Jeffersonian view that America’s constitutional structure limits and lessens government corruption. Reported Time: “Assange appears to believe that the U.S. has not become ‘a much-worse-behaved superpower’ because its federalism, ‘this strength of the states,’ has been a drag on the combination of the burgeoning power of the central government and a presidency that can expand its influence only by way of foreign affairs.”

Decentralizing government power, limiting it, and challenging it was the Founders’ intent and these have always been core conservative principles. Conservatives should prefer an explosion of whistleblower groups like WikiLeaks to a federal government powerful enough to take them down. Government officials who now attack WikLleaks don’t fear national endangerment, they fear personal embarrassment. And while scores of conservatives have long promised to undermine or challenge the current monstrosity in Washington, D.C., it is now an organization not recognizably conservative that best undermines the political establishment and challenges its very foundations.

—-

The “Southern Avenger” Jack Hunter is a conservative commentator on WTMA 1250 AM talk radio and columnist for the Charleston City Paper in South Carolina.

Jeff Kuhner takes it to another level: Kill Julian Assange

I figured someone in the Conservative media would say this sooner or later. I thought about it, but I really do not like the idea myself.

Jeff Kuhner at the Washington Times writes:

Julian Assange poses a clear and present danger to American national security. The WikiLeaks founder is more than a reckless provocateur. He is aiding and abetting terrorists in their war against America. The administration must take care of the problem – effectively and permanently.

The recent WikiLeaks document dump is the latest example of Mr. Assange’s dangerous behavior. His release of more than 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables, many of them containing classified information, is a major blow to our foreign policy. The essence of diplomacy – especially that of a great power – is the ability to conduct negotiations and hold talks in secret. Foreign leaders will not be willing to engage in sensitive discussions with American emissaries if their words are going to be splashed across the front pages of the world’s newspapers. Officials in autocratic and Islamist states often risk their lives to cooperate with Washington, usually by providing vital information or advice. They now face a further disincentive to help us: The U.S. government can no longer guarantee the privacy and secrecy of their discussions.

American diplomacy has been crippled. So has our ability to conduct the war on terrorism. For example, the cables cache reveals that the United States is working closely with Yemen’s dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh, in launching drone strikes against local al Qaeda bases. Al Qaeda has spread to Yemen. Its insurgency is growing. Yemen risks becoming what Afghanistan was before Sept. 11, 2001: a vast sanctuary for jihadists. Mr. Saleh insists that Yemeni public opinion – insular, xenophobic and increasingly Islamic – will not support the U.S. military presence on domestic soil. Hence, he says the pretense must be maintained that Yemen is firing the missiles, not America. This pretense has been shattered – and with it, perhaps, a key ally in the struggle against al Qaeda. Mr. Assange is helping chase the American infidel out of Yemen’s desolate deserts.

[………]

The United States is paying a severe price for Mr. Obama’s negligence. This is the greatest diplomatic crisis since the late 1940s, when communist agents in the U.S. government provided atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. The world is witnessing the absurd, almost surreal spectacle of the American superpower standing helpless in the face of a lone hacker. Her diplomatic secrets are no longer safe; her allies and friends are being betrayed; and her cyber-enemies are free to roam with impunity. America is no longer feared or respected.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. vows that he is looking into possible criminal charges against Mr. Assange. It is too late for tough talk. At this point, we are beyond indictments and courts. The damage has been done; people have died – and will die because of the actions of this puerile, self-absorbed narcissist. News reports say the WikiLeaks founder is hiding out in England. If that’s true, we should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him

Okay, here is the question that I feel the need to ask. Are we going to kill someone every time some whistle blower decides to speak out and expose some corruption in Government? Because if that is where we are headed, that is a slippery slope we can never recover from. Like anyone else, I am for open Government, I am also for seeing elected officials held accountable. However, if the United States Government and more importantly the United States Military is being put at risk, then by all means, arrest this guy and put him away.

I have no idea what Julian Assanges motivation is; whether it is conspiracy theory, politics or if he is just a pompous ass.  But the idea of KILLING someone, just because decide to release some confidential information is not something, as a Conservative; who believes in rule of law and not Governmental treachery, that I can support. Because once you unleash that monster onto the American and World Wide Community, it cannot be stopped.

I would think that Jeff Kuhner would be a bit smarter than that. However, when you are working for a paper that basically was a cheerleader for the Bush Administration during the lead up to and during the Iraqi Invasion, one can expect only so much.

Others: Reporters Sans Frontières, Hullabaloo, Harry’s Place, Guardian, New York Times, News: News blog and The New Republic

Bill O’Reilly interviews President George W. Bush

I have to give the man credit where it is due. Bill O’Reilly really gave Bush a good grilling here. Although, to his credit also, President Bush did stick to his guns.

Here part one and part two of the interview: (H/T Bill O’Reilly online)

Get the book:

Disclosure: I do make a little bit of money, if you order one of these books. You won’t pay any extra for it. It is capitalism, and I like capitalism, don’t you? 😉

My feelings on the Iraq War Wikileaks dump

I have one thing to say about the dump by Wikileaks of documents related to the War in Iraq.

War —— is pure hell.

I did not agree with the decision to go into Iraq and I always knew —- always — that this stuff would eventually come out.

It does hurt our guys over there now; which is the goal of the rat bastard that is running the site. I loathe him with every fiber of my being.

However, I believe that this should a be lesson to those who are in places of influential power—- that they should think long and hard, the next time they try to persuade a President to go to war with a Country to further your own political agenda or foreign policy vision that you support.  Going to war to support a Country with zero standing with the United Nations and who was illegally recognized by a sitting President —- always has disastrous results. You would have thought that these idiots would have learned that lesson during the Vietnam era — but, as they say, old dogs never learn new tricks. 🙄

It is a sad thing, but it was bound to happen — sooner or later.

Video: Gold and Silver Manipulation Exposed by GATA

An interesting video:

Get this DVD by clicking here

Invest in Silver and Gold, by Clicking Here

Quote of the Day

We won’t win the war on terror simply by killing, capturing, and imprisoning al-Qaeda terrorists and Taliban fighters; but neither can we afford to let up on them. If we pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan before those countries have governments that are stable enough to keep a tight lid on our enemies, we’ll soon be right back where we started. We can use missile and drone attacks and covert forces to kill our enemies in Yemen and Pakistan; but what do you think will happen when the next Umar Abdulmutallab or Faisal Shahzad succeeds in killing hundreds or thousands of Americans? Will we not again retaliate?

The negative effects of permanent war on the U.S. armed forces, on the American people, and on America’s diminishing financial resources are obvious. When compared to the effects of a chemical, biological, or nuclear terrorist weapon going off in an American city, however, those effects become secondary considerations.

No matter how much President Obama or his successor may want to end the permanent war, there is no exit strategy in a war with an enemy that relentlessly attacks the U.S. homeland. We can’t negotiate our way out, like we did in Korea; nor can we simply decide it’s costing too much in lives and treasure and walk away from it, as we did from Vietnam. This time the enemy will come after us.

Whatever your views on America’s ongoing multi-front war, it is not going to end anytime soon. We’ll be fighting this war “for the rest of our lives and probably our kids’ lives.” The Pentagon, the White House, and the American people must come together on a strategy for sustaining that fight until we ultimately defeat our enemy.

The G.O.P’s “Pledge to America” is nothing more retread Neo-Conservative, Theocracy nonsense

This is pretty rich; The Republican Party is trotting out the same old George W. Bush style of Governence, with some new promises. Promises that the Republican Party actually expect the American people to believe that they will actually keep.

Let us go through this thing, shall we?

This comes Via CBS NEWS:

CBS News has obtained a final draft of House Republicans’ legislative agenda for the next Congress, a 21-page "Pledge to America" that they will formally unveil Thursday morning at a Virginia hardware store.

"The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people cannot be overstated," the introduction says.

It continues: "With this document, we pledge to dedicate ourselves to the task of reconnecting our highest aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge to America."

Let look at this thing shall we? I mean, I need a good laugh! I will spare you the hum drum, "Patriot" sounding nonsense and puffery, and I will get to the meat and point out the crap.

We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.
We pledge to make government more transparent in its actions, careful in its stewardship, and honest in its dealings.
We pledge to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America, knowing that to whom much is given, much is expected and that the blessings of our liberty buoy the hopes of mankind.
We make this pledge bearing true faith and allegiance to the people we represent, and we invite fellow citizens and patriots to join us in forming a new governing agenda for America.

Hmmm, Sounds like they want to turn America into a theocracy. 

Continuing:

Permanently Stop All Job-Killing Tax Hikes: We will help the economy by permanently stopping all tax increases, currently scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011. That means protecting middle-class families, seniors worried about their retirement, and the entrepreneurs and family-owned small businesses on which we depend to create jobs in America.

• Give Small Businesses a Tax Deduction: We will allow small business owners to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their business income. This will provide entrepreneurs with a much-needed infusion of capital for investment and new hiring.

• Rein In the Red Tape Factory in Washington, DC: Excessive federal regulation is a de facto tax on employers and consumers that stifles job creation, hampers innovation and postpones investment in the economy. When the game is always changing, small businesses cannot properly plan for the future. To provide stability, we will require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 million or more. This is the threshold at which the government deems a regulation “economically significant.” If a regulation is so “significant” and costly that it may harm job creation, Congress should vote on it first.

• Repeal Job-Killing Small Business Mandates: One of the most controversial mandates of the Democrats’ government takeover of health care requires small businesses to report to the Internal Revenue Service any purchases that run more than $600. This 1099 reporting mandate is so overbearing that the IRS ombudsman has determined that the agency is ill-equipped to handle all the resulting paperwork.. We will repeal this job-killing small business mandate.

This was all promised before and never was enacted.

Act Immediately to Reduce Spending: There is no reason to wait to reduce wasteful and unnecessary spending. Congress should move immediately to cancel unspent “stimulus” funds, and block any attempts to extend the timeline for spending “stimulus” funds. Throwing more money at a stimulus plan that is not working only wastes taxpayer money and puts us further in debt.

• Cut Government Spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout Levels: With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and ending the spending spree in Washington that threatens our children’s future.

• Establish a Hard Cap on New Discretionary Spending: We must put common-sense limits on the growth of government and stop the endless increases. Only in Washington is there an expectation that whatever your budget was last year, it will be more this year and even more the next. We will set strict budget caps to limit federal spending on an annual basis. Budget caps were used in the 1990s, when a Republican Congress was able to bring the budget into balance and eventual surplus. By cutting discretionary spending from current levels and imposing a hard cap on future growth, we will save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

• Cut Congress’ Budget: This year, Congress increased its own budget by 5.8 percent at a time when families and small businesses across the country are cutting back. We will make Congress do more with less by significantly reducing its budget.

• Hold Weekly Votes on Spending Cuts: Earlier this year, House Republicans launched the YouCut initiative to combat the permissive culture of runaway spending in Congress. Over the course of nine weeks, YouCut produced proposals to save taxpayers more than $120 billion. We will continue to hold weekly votes on spending cuts.

• End TARP Once And For All: Americans are rightly outraged at the bailouts of businesses and entities that force responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior. We will cancel the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a move that would save taxpayers roughly $16 billion.

• End Government Control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Since taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage companies that triggered the financial meltdown by giving too many high risk loans to people who couldn’t afford them, taxpayers were billed more than $145 billion to save the two companies. We will reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by ending their government takeover, shrinking their portfolios, and establishing minimum capital standards. This will save taxpayers as much as $30 billion.

• Impose a Net Federal Hiring Freeze of Non-Security Employees: Small businesses and entrepreneurs are the engine of our economy and should not be crowded out by unchecked government growth. We will impose a net hiring freeze on non-security federal employees and ensure that the public sector no longer grows at the expense of the private sector.

• Root Out Government Waste and Duplication: Once created, federal programs almost never go away, even if the problem they were created to address is no longer relevant. More than 20 states have addressed this problem by requiring that programs end – or “sunset” – by a date certain. We will adopt this requirement at the federal level to force Congress to determine if a program is worthy of continued taxpayer support.

• Reform the Budget Process to Focus on Long-Term Challenges: We will make the decisions that are necessary to protect our entitlement programs for today’s seniors and future generations. That means requiring a full accounting of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, setting benchmarks for these programs and reviewing them regularly, and preventing the expansion of unfunded liabilities.

Again, this was all promised before in the past; and was never done. In fact, spending increased under the previous President.

My favorite so far…:

There is literally no aspect of our economy or our society that the federal government doesn’t tax, regulate or subsidize, and often it does all three at the same time. The most recent edition of the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance listed 2,050 different assistance programs available to states, local governments, for-profit and non-profit organizations, groups, and individuals. Taxpayers are literally funding programs from cradle to grave…

Yes, let’s defund programs for the actual needy, and the Handicapped — like my aunt. Let’s allow them starve. What idiots. 🙄

Here’s the REAL knee slapper!

• Read The Bill: We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. No more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents, and the public. Legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on.

• Adhere To The Constitution: For too long, Congress has ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government. Further, it has too often drafted unclear and muddled laws, leaving to an unelected judiciary the power to interpret what the law means and by what authority the law stands. This lack of respect for the clear Constitutional limits and authorities has allowed Congress to create ineffective and costly programs that add to the massive deficit year after year. We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.

• Make It Easier to Cut Spending: By forbidding amendments on spending bills, Democrats have denied lawmakers the opportunity to tighten Washington’s belt and slash wasteful and duplicative programs. Structure dictates behavior, so we will let any lawmaker — Democrat or Republican — offer amendments to reduce spending.

• Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time: We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation to circumvent the will of the American people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time.

However, they wish to do this too:

* Pass Clean Troop Funding Bills: When asked to provide our troops with the resources they need, we will do so without delay. That means no more troop funding bills held up by unrelated policy changes, or extraneous domestic spending and pork-barrel projects.

• Keep Terrorists Out of America: We will prevent the government from importing terrorists onto American soil. We will hold President Obama and his administration responsible for any Guantanamo Bay detainees they release who return to fight against our troops or who have become involved in any terrorist plots or activities.

• Demand an Overarching Detention Policy: Foreign terrorists do not have the same rights as American citizens, nor do they have more rights than U.S. military personnel. We will work to ensure foreign terrorists, such as the 9/11 conspirators, are tried in military, not civilian, court. We will oppose all efforts to force our military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel operating overseas to extend “Miranda Rights” to foreign terrorists.

• Fully Fund Missile Defense: There is real concern that while the threat from Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles could materialize as early as 2015, the government’s missile defense policy is not projected to cover the U.S. homeland until 2020. We will work to ensure critical funding is restored to protect the U.S. homeland and our allies from missile threats from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.

• Require Tough Enforcement of Sanctions Against Iran: The Iranian regime is a state-sponsor of terrorism, has actively worked to harm our deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and violates the rights and will of its own people. It has declared its determination to acquire a nuclear capability, which threatens its neighbors and the security of the United States. We will work to ensure the government aggressively and effectively implements the sanctions tools Congress has provided.

• Establish Operational Control of the Border: We must take action to secure our borders, and that action starts with enforcing our laws. We will ensure that the Border Patrol has the tools and authorities to establish operational control at the border and prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from interfering with Border Patrol enforcement activities on federal lands.

• Work with State and Local Officials to Enforce Our Immigration Laws: The problem of illegal immigration and Mexican drug cartels engaged in an increasingly violent conflict means we need all hands on deck to address this challenge. We will reaffirm the authority of state and local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of all federal immigration laws.

• Strengthen Visa Security: To stop terrorists like Omar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber, we will require the Department of Homeland Security to review all visa applications at high-risk consular posts and prevent aliens from attempting to avoid deportation after having their visas revoked.

As for immigration; how about we try this novel idea? END ALL IMMIGRATION FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS! Then, using the Government’s already vast resources, we round up, and DEPORT ALL Illegal immigrants in this damn country and BAR THEM from returned to the United States, FOREVER!

Yes, we want to stick to the constitution; but we also want to keep funding the Military industrial complex! This one was really one that makes me ill:

Require Tough Enforcement of Sanctions Against Iran: The Iranian regime is a state-sponsor of terrorism, has actively worked to harm our deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and violates the rights and will of its own people. It has declared its determination to acquire a nuclear capability, which threatens its neighbors and the security of the United States. We will work to ensure the government aggressively and effectively implements the sanctions tools Congress has provided.

Oh yes, let’s antagonize the hell out of Iran, until they strike one of our interests overseas; like Iraq and we end up having to go into that Country or some other one, with our interests in it. Which would lead to more War…….again!

Here is a novel idea. How about ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now? Because Iraq is done; let them people deal with their own Country. Afghanistan is basically lost. The Russians tried rebuilding that god-forsaken wilderness and failed. Why do we think that we can do it any better? Al-Qaeda is basically in Pakistan and so damned well protected; that we will never get them, unless we keep hitting civilian targets. Which only inspires more terrorists. Why not just use CIA Drones and bring out troops home? That or just admit that the United States purposefully let down it’s guard; and end the lie, in the first damned place!  That way, we can usually save some money for defending America from Terrorism here; seeing that we have created this situation of possible blow back from those wanting to hurt America, because of our stupid invasion of Iraq, which had zero to do with 9/11. How is that for a novel idea?

However, no, we would rather continue with the same old Neo-Conservative, Israel-appeasing, polices that caused 9/11 in the first damned place. In the process, we want to bankrupt the Country, by continuing to fund crap like that. Plus, we continue to fund other Countries, like Israel and their healthcare plan, which includes a public option; which America does not even have. Until this stops. America will continue to be in debt for a long time to come.

For what it is worth, I am not the only person that thinks this is crap. Even the folks at RedState hate it.

Memeorandum thread is here.

UPDATED: On the Bob Woodward Book

I am poking my head back in again — to comment on the big Bob Woodward story, that is the top story on Memeorandum.

I am referring to this:

President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.

Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page “terms sheet” that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in “Obama’s Wars,” to be released on Monday.

According to Woodward’s meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives.

“This needs to be a plan about how we’re going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan,” Obama is quoted as telling White House aides as he laid out his reasons for adding 30,000 troops in a short-term escalation. “Everything we’re doing has to be focused on how we’re going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint. It’s in our national security interest. There cannot be any wiggle room.”

Obama rejected the military’s request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. “I’m not doing 10 years,” he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. “I’m not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars.”

Woodward’s book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

But most of the book centers on the strategy review, and the dissension, distrust and infighting that consumed Obama’s national security team as it was locked in a fierce and emotional struggle over the direction, goals, timetable, troop levels and the chances of success for a war that is almost certain to be one of the defining events of this presidency.

Obama is shown at odds with his uniformed military commanders, particularly Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command during the 2009 strategy review and now the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

Woodward reveals their conflicts through detailed accounts of two dozen closed-door secret strategy sessions and nearly 40 private conversations between Obama and Cabinet officers, key aides and intelligence officials.

Tensions often turned personal. National security adviser James L. Jones privately referred to Obama’s political aides as “the water bugs,” the “Politburo,” the “Mafia,” or the “campaign set.” Petraeus, who felt shut out by the new administration, told an aide that he considered the president’s senior adviser David Axelrod to be “a complete spin doctor.”

During a flight in May, after a glass of wine, Petraeus told his own staffers that the administration was “[expletive] with the wrong guy.” Gates was tempted to walk out of an Oval Office meeting after being offended by comments made by deputy national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon about a general not named in the book.

Suspicion lingered among some from the 2008 presidential campaign as well. When Obama floated the idea of naming Clinton to a high-profile post, Axelrod asked him, “How could you trust Hillary?”

Okay, first off, has everyone forgotten that 90% of what Bob Woodward writes is just straight up, sensationalized Bullshit? The Neo-Cons sure did say that, when Bob Woodward wrote his book about Bush.  However, now the Neo-Cons are treating this book like the Gospel truth; because it is about a Democratic Party President. Of course, the warmongering Neo-Cons are eating the whole bit about the terrorist attack up and basically saying that President Obama wants another attack on America. Which is, of course, straight up bullshit.

Some of the other highlights are:

— Obama told Woodward in the July interview that he didn’t think about the Afghan war in the “classic” terms of the United States winning or losing. “I think about it more in terms of: Do you successfully prosecute a strategy that results in the country being stronger rather than weaker at the end?” he said.

— The CIA created, controls and pays for a clandestine 3,000-man paramilitary army of local Afghans, known as Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams. Woodward describes these teams as elite, well-trained units that conduct highly sensitive covert operations into Pakistan as part of a stepped-up campaign against al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban havens there.

— Obama has kept in place or expanded 14 intelligence orders, known as findings, issued by his predecessor, George W. Bush. The orders provide the legal basis for the CIA’s worldwide covert operations.

— A new capability developed by the National Security Agency has dramatically increased the speed at which intercepted communications can be turned around into useful information for intelligence analysts and covert operators. “They talk, we listen. They move, we observe. Given the opportunity, we react operationally,” then-Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell explained to Obama at a briefing two days after he was elected president.

— A classified exercise in May showed that the government was woefully unprepared to deal with a nuclear terrorist attack in the United States. The scenario involved the detonation of a small, crude nuclear weapon in Indianapolis and the simultaneous threat of a second blast in Los Angeles. Obama, in the interview with Woodward, called a nuclear attack here “a potential game changer.” He said: “When I go down the list of things I have to worry about all the time, that is at the top, because that’s one where you can’t afford any mistakes.”

— Afghan President Hamid Karzai was diagnosed as manic depressive, according to U.S. intelligence reports. “He’s on his meds, he’s off his meds,” Woodward quotes U.S. Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry as saying.

Again, I have to ask; how much of this is actual truth and how much of it is sensationalized bullshit?

Liberal Blogger No more Mister Nice Blog puts it correctly:

“It’s in our national security interest” “I am not spending a trillion dollars.” At least he understand that endless war is bad for America.

And the reason that’s important is that, if we’re still deeply mired in Afghanistan as of January 20, 2013, we’ll still be just as deeply mired four years later, because President Palin/Pence/Daniels/Thune/Huckabee/Barbour/Christie sure as hell ain’t gonna withdraw. But this semi-rationality on Obama’s part is going to be lost, and the bullet-point version of this entire book is going to be “Obama plans to surrender in Afghanistan to appease the evil traitorous voters in his party.”

I hate to say it; but he is absolutely correct. Because you all know that the Neo-Conservatives are all about perpetual war. But they call me a Neo-Nazi for pointing that out; and because I refuse to do the “Identity politics” for that particular warmongering class of people. I despise identity politics on the left and the right. That, according to the protected class, is being a Neo-Nazi. Which, like most of Bob Woodward’s writings, is just straight up bullshit.

Memeorandum Thread Here.

Update: But of course. That is the same idiot that said that Iraq was an imminent danger to America and the rest of the free world back in 2003. Which of course, like Bob Woodward’s books; was straight up bullshit. 🙄

The Obligatory Obama will not extend Bush Tax Cuts Posting

Well, duh, he is a liberal and a Democrat. He does believe in class warfare. Remember you Republicans and Libertarians that voted for him. (You know who you are…)

Via the NYT:

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday will make clear that he opposes any compromise that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy beyond this year, officials said, adding a populist twist to an election-season economic package that is otherwise designed to entice support from big businesses and their Republican allies.

Mr. Obama’s opposition to allowing the high-end tax cuts to remain in place for even another year or two would be the signal many Congressional Democrats have been awaiting as they prepare for a showdown with Republicans on the issue and ends speculation that the White House might be open to an extension. Democrats say only the president can rally wavering lawmakers who, amid the party’s weakened poll numbers, feel increasingly vulnerable to Republican attacks if they let the top rates lapse at the end of this year as scheduled.

It is not clear that Mr. Obama can prevail given his own diminished popularity, the tepid economic recovery and the divisions within his party. But by proposing to extend the rates for the 98 percent of households with income below $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals — and insisting that federal income tax rates in 2011 go back to their pre-2001 levels for income above those cutoffs — he intends to cast the issue as a choice between supporting the middle class or giving breaks to the wealthy.

In a speech in Cleveland on Wednesday, Mr. Obama will also make a case for the package of roughly $180 billion in expanded business tax cuts and infrastructure spending disclosed by the White House in bits and pieces over the past few days. He would offset the cost by closing other tax breaks for multinational corporations, oil and gas companies and others.

While the speech will be centrist in its policy prescriptions other than the Bush tax cuts, Mr. Obama’s language will be partisan as he seeks to sharpen the contrasts between Republicans’ record and efforts by Democrats to create more jobs, aides said.

As much as I would like to jump up, holler and raise a fuss about this; I cannot. We all knew that this was coming. This should be a lesson to the Republican Party. That is, do not run weak or moderate Conservatives during elections. Because when you do; Conservatives, and I mean hardcore Conservatives will not vote — and this is what you get. I know that I, personally, will not be affected by this; neither will my family.

However, I am sure that there will be some families affected by this —  not to mention a myriad of business owners out there. This will, I am sure, cause a downtown in hiring by businesses; which will add to the huge downturn in the economy. It is all a domino effect, starts at the top and goes to the bottom.

Another thing to think about; we do have to eventually pay for these two wars. I believe that those who profited off of both of these wars ought to be targeted for taxing. I believe that a special “War Tax”, ought to be appended to anyone making over $500.000 or more a year. I would target multinational companies, like oil companies and so forth. Especially those in Iraq. Perhaps next time, the warmongering class will not be so eager to start a war next time. This taxing would reinforce the idea that those wanting said war, should they actually have to pay for it. Foreign Policy has a price tag; and those who want follow Woodrow Wilson’s steps, should be required to pay that price tag.

Memorandum Thread.

Want Living Proof that Nation-Building does not work?

Here you go, a video of New York Times reporter John Burns, who, by the way, was the best person covering the Iraq War.

The Video: (H/T HotAir.com)

Ed Morrissey makes a very important point:

On Iraq, it’s hard to see how Obama could have improved the situation. He followed the SOFA pact that George W. Bush negotiated with Nouri al-Maliki, and the Iraqi government made it clear they wanted us to stick to that schedule. If the Iraqis want us out entirely by the end of next year, we have little choice but to comply; to do otherwise would be a de facto reoccupation that will not fly well here at home or abroad.  However, I’d say it’s entirely likely that Baghdad will rethink that final phase and ask us to remain for logistics, training, and air and sea protection for the next several years, and then the question will be whether Obama will agree to it or insist on a full withdrawal, even if it means the collapse of the nascent democracy in Iraq.

Afghanistan is a different problem, but one with potentially the same result.  Obama owns Afghanistan more than he does Iraq, having made the decision himself to add more troops and get more aggressive, which means a failure there can’t be left on the doorstep of his predecessor.  If Obama starts withdrawing from both fronts as they deteriorate, he will at least be the man who lost Afghanistan, if not Iraq as well, just as he has to prepare to convince Americans to give him another four years as Commander-in-Chief.  For that reason, I doubt we’ll see a significant drawdown in either theater, and Obama will just have to remind the Left that they have nowhere else to go in 2012.

Ever notice how Neo-Conservatives will never say Bush screwed up with Iraq, at all? They will never admit, that there was an intelligence error — never. That is what Party loyalty does to a person.

Anyhow, some good reading about Nation-Building over at The American Conservative:

“Nation-building is the most prominent — and most important — part of the neocon doctrine,” wrote Jed Babbin in the American Spectator. “And the decision to pursue it is the principal reason that we are losing in Afghanistan, Iraq is falling apart, and the real enemy — the terror-sponsoring nations — have grown stronger.”

None of these writers can accurately be described as a budding noninterventionist. But most conservatives who opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and favored no more than a limited mission in Afghanistan can agree with them on the following: neither Islam nor foreign lands can easily be reformed by either bureaucrats or the force or the force of arms; our interventions have produced something closer to sharia states than Switzerland’s; Iran is now more powerful in the region rather than less.

There have l0ng been three main foreign-policy tendencies on the American Right: old-style conservatives who agree with Randolph Bourne that war is the health of the state and therefore favor less military intervention abroad; neoconservatives who want to preserve the United States’ global hegemony and engage in armed proselytizing for democracy; and defense-minded conservatives who believe the U.S. should strike forcefully at its enemies whenever it perceives itself, its interests, or its allies to be threatened.

Roughly speaking, these groups can be described as the Jeffersonians, the Wilsonians, and the Jacksonians. Among rank-and-file conservatives, the Jacksonians are by far the largest group. In the postwar era, the Jacksonians have tended to align with the Wilsonians. But there is no reason why that conjunction is inevitable.

With the exception of Ron Paul and some Ron Paul Republicans, the Jeffersonians have no major political figure to speak for them. Yet the popularity of the Wilsonians was always greatly exaggerated. The invasion of Iraq and the mass conservative acceptance of the Bush Doctrine were made possible by al-Qaeda’s act of mass murder on 9/11.

Throughout the 1990s, Wilsonian neoconservatives called for regime change in Iraq, but they did not succeed in rallying the grassroots Right to the cause. The conservative base tuned out the PNAC crowd. Millions of conservatives voted for Pat Buchanan, who opposed even the first war with Iraq, in the 1992 and 1996 Republican presidential primaries—even as neoconservative commentators were writing essays attempting to purge Buchanan from conservative movement.

Grassroots conservatives were repulsed by American bloodshed during our humanitarian intervention in Somalia. They opposed using our armed forces to deliver groceries to Third World countries and restoring a dubious left-wing character to power in Haiti. They objected to the bombing of Serbia and canceled their subscriptions to the Weekly Standard when that magazine sided with the Clinton administration on military action in the Balkans.

The years after 9/11 were a Jacksonian moment hijacked by neoconservatives. While most American conservatives liked the idea that the we could increase others’ freedom by defending our own against despots overseas, very few of them wanted to go to war to build schools in Iraq or promote democracy. They wanted to pay back the people who murdered their countrymen and make sure that such an attack never happened again.

They trusted that George W. Bush was the man for the job and were patient when he talked about lighting a fire in the minds of men. But ordinary conservatives nevertheless agreed with the following sentiment expressed by John Derbyshire: “What matters most is not the fire in the minds of men, which will burn at some level for as long as there are men, but the fire that results when fissionable material undergoes a fast chain reaction.”

You see the problem is that the very same people that stood behind George W. Bush and cheered him, as he charged off to war in Iraq and Afghanistan; are the same one who stand and in unison blame President Obama for any failures for the war in both Countries.  The truth is that President Obama DID inherit BOTH of these wars for President Bush and it is because of utter incompetence of the Pentagon and State Department under President Bush, not to mention the entire intelligence community, is why we are in this mess in the first place!

So, instead of being noble and honest men, and admitting that they actually made mistakes, one being electing a President that was about as Conservative, as I am damned atheist; they would rather navel graze the whole thing and try and deflect the blame onto the Democrats, as much as they possibly can.  The problem is with that little idiotic plan is this; thinking Americans, like this writer are just smarter than that, we know what happened and we know who was responsible for the actions of the President.  I am fully aware of who goaded the President into declaring war with Iraq.  I have no forgotten and neither have the American people.  This is, one of a myriad of reasons, why John McCain lost the election.  Because the American people did not want someone, who would take marching orders from the Neo-Conservatives.

So far, Obama has been showing his independence of the warmongering class in the Republican Party. Thankfully, under Michael Steele the warmongering class have been pushed aside; which is why people like William Kristol want him to resign so badly, that being because Michael Steele will not march to their orders and is expressing his own views, and not those who wish the United States to fight a perpetual war.  I commend Michael Steele for that.

Another thing I think I need to be clear on; as you know, I did post a video, that was a warning to America.  Some would look at that and say, “Are you not talking about of both sides of your mouth?” to that I would say no. That is because that video essentially validates what I have believed all along; that the notion of, “We must fight the terrorists there, so we do not have to fight them here” is idiotic at best.  That is because there are radical Islamic terrorists that are already here now! That video proves as much.  My personal issue with George W. Bush was not with fighting terrorism, which he began in Afghanistan.  He however, was goaded by the warmongering class in the Republican Party to go to war with Iraq, which, for what it is worth, is what this class of people wanted to do during the Clinton years, but was rebuffed repeatedly.  This caused, I feel, a distraction, as those who planned had this strange idea, that the invasion would be a cakewalk.  I believe it would be understood that we all know now that this was a very flawed idea.

Much of what I said above, would be considered, what I like to call, “rearview mirror quarterbacking.”  We all know this now, the problem is, where do he go from here?  The best thing that can happen is Obama follow through with his promises to follow Bush’s pull out timetable in Iraq.  We cannot continue to be the World’s police officer.  If Iraq has an upheaval over there, let them.  We did our part over there; we rooted the major player in the insurgency.  We toppled Saddam.  What happens after we have left is not our concern.  As for Afghanistan, if we can catch or kill Osama Bin Laden, fine do so.  However, if the Afghan Government and the Pakistani Government is that corrupt and does not want to be partner against the war on terror.  I say cut our losses and pull out the troops and leave.  Then send in specialized CIA assassins in there to hunt Osama Bin Laden down and kill him that way.  I just do not see the justification for our Military personnel dying for a Government that is corrupt to its core.  It just does not make any sort of sense to me at all.

Bottom Line:  President Obama should not be blame for any of the failures of any of these wars.  The President who started them should be blamed.  President Obama should continue the turnkey plan given him by Bush, and should implement a better strategy in the Afghan theater.  If the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan will not work with the United States on the capture or killing of Osama Bin Laden, then President should use the CIA to kill him.