The big news cycle today is Obamassiah is on his overseas PhotoOp Trip, and already there is a story out that the Iraqi P.M. is supposedly supporting Obama’s Plan of retreat and defeat.
Actually, this is what is going to happen in Iraq, regardless of what that turban-headed idiot thinks, or his people.
Video:
If you would like to look at the left, wetting themselves over a story, which is most likely been distorted, please feel free to click here.
….and that’s your Saturday non-headline of the day! 😉
One of John McCain’s fellow POW’s in Vietnam defended the war in Iraq, saying, “The Muslims have said either we kneel or they’re going to kill us.”
In a phone call with reporters arranged by Republican Party of Florida, Colonel Bud Day added: “I don’t intend to kneel and I don’t advocate to anybody that we kneel, and John doesn’t advocate to anybody that we kneel.”
The man spoke the truth, and that’s a problem?
Muslim leaders have complained that they have been villified as terrorists since the Sept. 11 attacks.
In the area of security cooperation, the President and the Prime Minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals — such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. The President and Prime Minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal. The two leaders welcomed in this regard the return of the final surge brigade to the United States this month, and the ongoing transition from a primary combat role for U.S. forces to an overwatch role, which focuses on training and advising Iraqi forces, and conducting counter-terror operations in support of those forces. – Statement by the Press Secretary on Iraq (Via The White House’s Official Website)
I have to give Jack Moss credit, he is right here:
It’s not a “concession”, but what the President had been saying all along, that when the Iraqis are ready and want us to go we will go.
I agree with you 100%, Jack. Only reason this discussion of timetables ever started is because of the defeatist commie liberals want us to not complete the job we started and not fix what we broke. They, that being the Anti-American, Troop Hating commie Liberals here in America. Time tables, glad we didn’t do that during World War 2, or we’d be under German or Japanese rule today.
Larry Hunter has decided that Obama is the answer for America.
Who is Larry Hunter?
Quote:
I’m a lifelong Republican – a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole’s presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp’s Empower America.
This November, I’m voting for Barack Obama.
So, why is Larry supporting Obama?
Quote:
The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies – this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.
Taxes, economic policy and health care reform matter, of course. But how we extract ourselves from the bloody boondoggle in Iraq, how we avoid getting into a war with Iran and how we preserve our individual rights while dealing with real foreign threats – these are of greater importance.
He does not mince words about Juan McSame either:
Quote:
John McCain would continue the Bush administration’s commitment to interventionism and constitutional overreach. Obama promises a humbler engagement with our allies, while promising retaliation against any enemy who dares attack us. That’s what conservatism used to mean – and it’s what George W. Bush promised as a candidate.
So, why is this man throwing his Conservative principles into the wind and voting for Obama?
Quote:
“But here’s the thing: Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed, dyed-in-the-wool, big-government liberal, I’m still voting for him.
These past eight years, we have spent over a trillion dollars on foreign soil – and lost countless lives – and done what I consider irreparable damage to our Constitution.
If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It’s not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years.”
I hate to admit it, but I agree with him. I believe that the Republican Party needs to be punished, harshly, for it’s allowing of a Neo-Conservative, Big Government, Pro-War, Agenda to overtake it. The Republican Party needs to take the next 7 years to rewrite the party’s entire message.
The McCain campaign is taking their effort to distance their candidate from the unpopular President Bush to a whole new level: McCain’s advisers are now openly attacking Bush on Iraq — and not only that, they’re also saying that Barack Obama is the one who is like Bush on the war!
On a conference call just now with reporters, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann compared Barack Obama’s insistence on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq to Bush’s insistence that we were winning even as things went badly for years.
“I think the American people have had enough of inflexibility and stubbornness in national security policy,” Scheunemann said. When asked later by the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein whether the campaign was disparaging President Bush, Scheunemann dug in: “We cannot afford to replace one administration that refused for too long to acknowledge failure in Iraq with a candidate that refuses to acknowledge success in Iraq.”
Forget “McSame.” The candidate who would really continue Bush’s policies is “BushBama.”
Wow…. 😮 😯 Talk about spinning like a top. I have a very bad feeling this is going to backfire on McCain in a really big hurry.
Anyone who thinks that Barack Obama is anything remotely similar than Bush, quite frankly, has got a screw loose.
I’d be willing to bet that Barry’s behind is bit sore today…
A stinging Editorial from the Washington Post on Barry’s Iraq Plan:
BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: “They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we can’t leave when violence is down.” Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might “refine” his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.
Mr. Obama’s charge against the Republicans was not entirely fair, since Mr. Bush has overseen the withdrawal of five American brigades from Iraq this year, and Mr. McCain has suggested that he would bring most of the rest of the troops home by early 2013. Mr. Obama’s timeline would end in the summer of 2010, a year or two before the earliest dates proposed recently by members of the Iraqi government. The real difference between the various plans is not the dates but the conditions: Both the Iraqis and Mr. McCain say the withdrawal would be linked to the ability of Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. troops, as they have begun to do. Mr. Obama’s strategy allows no such linkage — his logic is that a timetable unilaterally dictated from Washington is necessary to force Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.
At the time he first proposed his timetable, Mr. Obama argued — wrongly, as it turned out — that U.S. troops could not stop a sectarian civil war. He conceded that a withdrawal might be accompanied by a “spike” in violence. Now, he describes as “an achievable goal” that “we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future — a government that prevents sectarian conflict and ensures that the al-Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge.” How will that “true success” be achieved? By the same pullout that Mr. Obama proposed when chaos in Iraq appeared to him inevitable.
[…]
“What’s missing in our debate,” Mr. Obama said yesterday, “is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq.” Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome — that Iraq “distracts us from every threat we face” and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That’s an irrational and a historical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world’s largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq’s future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.
Ouch! That had to hurt. As I pointed out on Monday, Barry’s plan is just more of the same, but ever so slightly modified to somewhat reflect the conditions on the ground. However, what the Washington Post is getting him on, is his continuing insistence that he is pulling us out, no matter if we’re winning or not. I agree, pulling us out of Iraq, irregardless if we went in there on bad information or not, is just bad policy. It shows a lack of personal responsiblity, which is, as I have said repeatedly, what the Democrats and especially the far left are infamous for.
Republicans were not alone in that response. Michael E. O’Hanlon, a Democratic defense analyst at the Brookings Institution who has been an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq, said he could not believe that Obama would put such a definitive timeline into print before a trip to Iraq, where he is to consult with Iraqi leaders and U.S. commanders.
“To say you’re going to get out on a certain schedule — regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground — is the height of absurdity,” said O’Hanlon, who described himself as “livid.” “I’m not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn’t be president. I’ll leave that to someone else.”
The reason I don’t get it is, because what Obama wrote in that Op-Ed piece was basically his primary stump speech with some very minor refinements to it. So, why anyone on the Democrat side would be “Livid” about it, as they this guy put it, is well beyond me. In other words, Obama did not say anything different, than he did in the primary, he just updated it to reflect current events.
Now his point about Obama going to Iraq, I can see that point. But for him to become upset about what was written, I don’t get that, at all.
Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.
“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.”
GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. “The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong,” said McCain, adding that Obama “refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding.”
B. Hussein Obama, Website Editor in chief. I love it! 😆 😛 😀 😉
However, the left would just say, what about all the times that the George W. Bush Administration changed their message, as the Iraq dissolved into chaos in 2004? How many times did they change their reasoning for even being there?
Of course, the Republican Neo-Cons are wetting themselves over this, and I’ll put the various ones in down at the end.
The way I see it, he’s coming towards the center, instead of pandering to the hard left, which is what he did in the primary, which is what the Congress did in the 2006 election. I’m personally glad to see that he’s trying to prove himself not to be another Dennis Kucinich, but rather a more moderate progressive, who is more pragmatic, than idealistic. This could very well help him in the general election. I think.
Personally, like I said on Jim’s show. The people of the United States of America are tired of this war, period. This is why the President’s approval ratings are through the floor, this is why the congress approval rating is very low as well.
Personally, as I said on Jim’s show, I personally believe that we are NOT going to go directly to war with Iran. I believe that we are going to first use negotiations, via third party talks. Then, if that does not work. We will pursue Military via proxy though Israel.
So, again, I very highly doubt that the US would be foolish enough to pursue military action directly, with Iran. Because for one, George W. Bush does not want to drop two wars into the lap of an incoming President, because he wants to be the Republican hero. Not the President who drops a war to the next President.
Remember, we tried to be the hero’s in the middle east and it failed, and the situation in Iraq is just now starting to come around in Iraq. We’re not going to make that mistake twice, at least not with Bush in the White House.
The head of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries warned Thursday that oil prices would see an “unlimited” increase in the case of a military conflict involving Iran, because the group’s members would be unable to make up the lost production.
“We really cannot replace Iran’s production – it’s not feasible to replace it,” Abdalla Salem El-Badri, the OPEC secretary general, said during an interview.
Iran, the second-largest producing country in OPEC, after Saudi Arabia, produces about 4 million barrels of oil a day out of the daily worldwide production of close to 87 million barrels. The country has been locked in a lengthy dispute with Western countries over its nuclear ambitions.
In recent weeks, the price of oil has risen higher on speculation that Israel could be preparing to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. The saber-rattling intensified this week with missile tests by Iran. That has further shaken oil markets because of concerns that any conflict with Iran could disrupt oil shipments from the Gulf region.
“The prices would go unlimited,” Badri said during the interview, referring to the effect of a military conflict. “I can’t give you a number.”
I highly recommend that everyone, of all political stripes go read this article. This is why we cannot go to war with Iran. Not because of our Military, but rather because it would kill us, even worse than it is now, at the gas pump.
We just cannot afford, I cannot afford, the Nation cannot afford another war with another country.
Afghan officials said fighter aircraft battling militants accidentally killed up to 27 Afghans walking to a wedding ceremony in eastern Afghanistan early Sunday, the second military attack in three days with reports of civilian deaths — Afghan officials: US missiles killed 27 civilians – Yahoo! News
Two Words…. Tough shit.
Why would I say that? I’ll tell you why. The way I see it, if your country knowingly harbors a terrorist leader and his group of thugs, that was responsible for killing 2,974 of our people. Then I say if some of your people, who happened to be in the area, when our forces happen to be taking out a group of terrorists. That’s just too damn bad.
Does that make me a chicken hawk? Hell No. What that makes me is someone who supports our Military, it makes me a Nationalist, who loves America and happens to believe in the doctrine of “what comes around, goes around” and of “If you play with mud, you’re gonna get dirty”.
Some of us, have not forgotten, at all, what happened in New York, and at the Pentegon on 9/11.
It seems that according to various British media sources, the United States scored a major victory in Iraq.
Too bad the vast majority of Americans, unless they read blogs, won’t hear about it. That’s because the United States Liberal controlled media is too busy trying to tell Americans that the war in Iraq is lost and that we’re losing, and so forth.
What further proof do we need, that the Liberals in this country, hate America, Our Military and the values that we conservatives hold dear?
It is no wonder that places like the New York Times and other dead wood media sources are losing money left and right and will eventually be put out of business.
The Silence of these media sources speak volumes to me.
This is a great article, I recommend you go read it all…
Quote:
“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” George W. Bush, September 13, 2001. “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” George W. Bush, March 13, 2002
The move to impeach President George W. Bush has been around for years. A large number of Americans actually thought that by voting in Democrats and “taking back” Congress in 2006, not only would America withdraw from this heinous, unconstitutional war in Iraq (and Afghanistan), they could also expect the incompetent, Nancy Pelosi, to spear head the impeachment of Bush. Of course, these duped Americans were played, again. There was never any doubt in my mind that there would be no impeachment. – The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder By Devvy Kidd (via NewsWithViews.com)
The most important point that Mrs. Kidd makes in this article is:
1. It is not our duty or obligation to remove any dictator from any foreign country by invading and killing anyone in our way. The Monroe Doctrine, December 2, 1823
2. It is not our responsibility to invade a foreign country to promote the evil of democracy. The Monroe Doctrine, December 2, 1823
3 – It is not our responsibility to invade any foreign country to allegedly protect a neighboring country to settle squabbling, religious or tribal differences between them that have lasted decades or a thousand years. The Monroe Doctrine, December 2, 1823
4. The U.S. Constitution does not authorize the American people to be robbed using borrowed money to fund wars based on lies and what is known as nation building. Our military is for our defense, period. We have the right to defend if attacked.
5. Bush has acknowledged the fact that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11, 2001.
6. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
7. Iraq was NOT any kind of threat to these united States of America.
8. Bush and his co conspirators planned the invasion of Iraq long before September 11, 2001, because it is the agenda being pursued for world government and every country who doesn’t fall lock step into line will be invaded and occupied until the desired results are achieved. That agenda includes making sure control of the world’s oil supply is in the hands of the power brokers who own the U.S. Congress.
Paid mouth pieces and party hacks on the stupid tube shout that any American questioning Bush’s motives during a time of war and and the invasions of two non threatening countries are somehow aiding and abetting the enemy. “Soft on terrorism.” Classic propaganda. It is our duty to question the motives and policies of those allegedly elected to public office on any issue – especially war.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
[….}
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
It was on this day, 232 years ago. That men decided that freedom was the only way. This post is for them.
A few videos:
A video that tells the story of our National Anthem and how it came to be:
A singing of our National Anthem, that I think is the closest thing to Heavenly Angels singing that we’ll ever get here on Earth:
Another American Classic:
Another one, done, only the way, this man could do it:
Even John Wayne knows:
I posted this, not for some stupid political ploy, not to be clever, but to remind everyone, no matter what your political stripe or conviction or feeling, You are, We are, all Americans. This is our land, and we should, at least once a year, stop and reflect on our freedoms. The freedom to write, the freedom to Pray to whatever God we wish or the freedom to not pray, at all. The freedom to agree, the freedom of dissent or to disagree, the freedom to assemble or simply the freedom to do nothing at all.
As Always, We remember our soldiers, especially those who have fallen:
One of my favorite songs:
Update: I could not remember the name of this song last night, I remembered the name this morning:
I cannot listen to this without tearing up… it’s tough, even for a guy:
God Bless the United States of America and God Bless and Keep our Soldiers.
There is a bunch that one could say about this. From what I have read this was covered in a book. But it does strike me as shocking that a Presidential Administration would allow something like this to happen.
What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.
The recycled chart is the latest and most vivid evidence of the way Communist interrogation methods that the United States long described as torture became the basis for interrogations both by the military at the base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and by the Central Intelligence Agency.- An Expert Reveals Chinese Origins of Interrogation Techniques at Guantánamo – NYTimes.com
I just have to wonder aloud, I wonder if Neo-Con Michelle Malkin and her stooge Capt. Ed. will try and spin this one and act like there’s nothing wrong with it? When do you finally say, “This is wrong” and disassociate yourself with a Political Party? What does it take? It is to truly wonder.
