Thinkin’bout Stuff

Using Senator Obama’s website, thought we could take a look at some of his accomplishments that have prepared him for the presidency and at some of his plans and solutions to give us hope and change.

Direct from Obama’s website (with some thoughts as we journey down this path):

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Is that really a good idea?  Do we want to leave a handful of troops in Iraq?  One of the reasons Obama wants to pull our troops out is to get them out of harm’s way; wouldn’t this leave the remaining troops extremely vulnerable to attack?  What does he mean when he says he will keep troops in Iraq if al Qaeda builds a base in Iraq?  If we leave and they build a base, are we going right back?  What if, being the tricky terrorists they are, al Qaeda doesn’t bother to build a “base” and just takes control of a major city, do we go back in then?  How many troops is sufficient to protect our embassy and diplomats?

Assuming this is actually a good idea, to remove troops on an accelerated, non-condition based timetable, can it be done?  What do the military folks have to say on the subject (h/t to Freedom’s Lighthouse):

Hmmm.. doesn’t sound like a promise Obama will be able to keep.  Too bad he didn’t actually research the topic before reading the script in front of an audience.

Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obamawill engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society - in and out of government - to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

So we, the United States, whose congress can not agree on anything, with the help of the United Nations, who can’t agree on anything, will play a central role in forcing Iraqis to agree on everything.  Is this before or after our troops leave? If they don’t agree do we leave faster, slower or stay until they agree? How does this work? Are they not a soveriegn nation now? Are they not a fledgling democracy? Is Obama suggesting that Iraq must do his bidding?

Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors - including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.

Ya, just what we need, Syria and Iran having input into Iraq’s reconstruction.  What does he plan to give Syria and Iran to stop them from “meddling inside Iraq”?  

Humanitarian Initiative
Obamabelieves that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis - two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obamawill form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

Where does he get these numbers from? 4 million displaced/refugee Iraqi’s? What does displaced mean? They are not living where they were living 5 years ago?  On the one hand Obama complains we are spending too much on Iraq, on the other he wants to hand AT LEAST $2 billion to neighboring countries to take care of Iraqi refugees, and on the other hand (three hands? no wonder all our pockets get emptied so quickly when Dems are in office), he wants neighboring countries to have a say in Iraq’s reconstruction… does he expect the neighboring companies to chip in a few bucks?  Or will we be picking up the whole tab and give them an additional $2 billion PLUS bonus to cover the cost of all those Iraqi refugees.  Oh, and some of the money goes to ensuring Iraqis inside their own country can find safe haven… ummm.. how do we do that if all our troops are leaving?

Barack Obama’s Record
Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against the war. He said the war would lead to “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences.” In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation to responsibly end the war in Iraq, with a phased withdrawal of troops engaged in combat operations.

Ah yes, his record… those accomplishments that prepared him to be president.  Starting with his “courage” to speak out against the war while a member of the Illinois state senate…  oooo… how very, very brave.   In a country where free speech is protected by our Constitution?  To speak out while a state senator and say he thinks the war is a bad idea?  Risky stuff.   Oh… he forgot to mention he said the surge, driven by John McCain, was a tragic mistake.  From his 1/5/07 podcast:

“I have to say that it is a chilling prospect, the notion that we would send tens of thousands of additional American young men and women to compound the tragic mistake that has already been made over the last four years.

“… In the face of this quagmire, the notion that we would put tens of thousands more young Americans in harm’s way without changing our fundamental strategy, a strategy that’s failed by almost every imaginable count , makes absolutely no sense. In escalating the war with a so-called surge of troops, the president would be overriding the express concerns of Generals on the ground, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and the American people.”

Obama was wrong on every point then, and he is still wrong now.  But let’s assume the “record” documented on his website is a positive one…  what record? What did he do? Speak out against the war? That’s what he accomplished? Not exactly the type of experience we should be looking for to prep someone to be our next president.

The only other listing on the Iraq section of the website under the heading of “Barack Obama’s Record”:

Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutionalconvention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq’s leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq.

So this is listed as both a plan AND an accomplishment.  Kinda like padding a term paper by repeating paragraphs.  Sorry, -10 points, this is not an accomplishment; it barely qualifies as a plan and, as discussed earlier, is not even a viable plan.

So there you have it, our look at Obama’s accomplishments and plans in the area of Iraq policy.  His plans are not well thought out and his accomplishments amount to saying he opposed the war when he was a state senator.  Impressive indeed.

News Flash: Obama would keep troops in Iraq… although he doesn’t realize it just yet. 

Here’s my thinking on this:

From Reuters:

Obama said during the debate with Clinton that once he withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq, if al Qaeda were to form a base there, “then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”

“I have some news,” McCain said. “Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called Al Qaeda in Iraq. My friends, if we left, they wouldn’t be establishing a base, they’d be taking a country and I’m not going to allow that to happen.”

…  Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, who told U.S. lawmakers Wednesday that Al Qaeda in Iraq had suffered major setbacks last year and although still “capable of mounting lethal attacks,” the group had suffered hundreds of members killed or captured.

<snip>

“I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq,” he said to cheers.

So let’s boil this down:   

1. As president, Obama would send troops into Iraq to fight al Qaeda
2. Obama concedes al Qaeda is in Iraq (although he blames Bush for their existence… which seems somewhat moot at the moment)
3. Therefore… Obama would need to keep troops in Iraq to fight al Qaeda

By the way, why is it bad that we have a place to fight al Qaeda that is not on US soil? Although I do not buy into the theory that al Qaeda was not in Iraq until the war, let’s assume that is true… isn’t that a good thing that our enemy was willing come to the place where we already had our troops in place to fight… seems like it’s working out pretty well. First choice should always be to not have a war, but if we are in a war, seems like it’s better to fight it over there instead of over here… even better than fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan.

I had read, with some skepticism, Malcolm Nance’s assertion that waterboarding is torture:

I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school’s interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques employed by the Army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What is less frequently reported is that our training was designed to show how an evil totalitarian enemy would use torture at the slightest whim.

Having been subjected to this technique, I can say: It is risky but not entirely dangerous when applied in training for a very short period. However, when performed on an unsuspecting prisoner, waterboarding is a torture technique - without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it.

In the media, waterboarding is called “simulated drowning,” but that’s a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.

Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

Not sure how it can be torture when applied to a prisoner but not torture when used in training.  If I pull out your fingernails in a training session, is that not torture? How about if I tie your hands and feet together behind your back and hang you from the ceiling… training?

It’s either torture or not torture in my view.  So if it is torture, and we know torture is illegal, why then is congress not demanding that we prosecute those “trainers”?

But what really got me was the assertion that pint after pint of water fills your lungs.  Have you ever aspirated anything? I have… a very small food particle.  This resulted in pneumonia that knocked me out of commission for quite some time…  for a tiny partical of food.  So I’m thinking pints of water filling my lungs would pretty much have killed me.

Turns out my hunch was right.  Found this over at Captains Quarters:

There is a word for people who have “pint after pint of water” filling their lungs: dead. “In fact,” according to Mike, “they would be very, very dead. By definition, anyone who has drowned is in fact dead. A large percentage of true drownings do not involve ANY water entering the lungs because the epiglottis closes off the air passages as water enters the throat. People who die immediately from being immersed in water actually die of suffocation, not water entering their lungs. Not only that, many people who survive a near-drowning who do have even small amounts of water that slip by the epiglottis and enter their lungs can die later of fluid shifts and pneumonia. I can assure you that we do not use any technique that involves true suffocation or aspiration of water into the lungs. One cannot get questions to answers from people who suffocate or have water fill their lungs in any interrogation technique, which would render that technique more than a little self-defeating. Dead men tell no tales — and also make rather poor soldiers.”

I am far from an expert on waterboarding, but just the fact that journalists have subjected themselves to this technique indicates to me that waterboarding is a very intense form of coercion, but not torture.

Flopping Aces has some good insight on the topic as well.

Did you miss this article when it was published in the WSJ?  I did.

Clicked a historical link over at Bottom Line Up Front and found the link to the WSJ article which was written by a former high-ranking KGB agent. What he confirms s what many of us have long believed: our enemies use our mass media as a powerful conduit for their propaganda:

The communist effort to generate hatred for the American president began soon after President Truman set up NATO and propelled the three Western occupation forces to unite their zones to form a new West German nation. We were tasked to take advantage of the reawakened patriotic feelings stirring in the European countries that had been subjugated by the Nazis, in order to shift their hatred for Hitler over into hatred for Truman–the leader of the new “occupation power.” Western Europe was still grateful to the U.S. for having restored its freedom, but it had strong leftist movements that we secretly financed. They were like putty in our hands.

The European leftists, like any totalitarians, needed a tangible enemy, and we gave them one. In no time they began beating their drums decrying President Truman as the “butcher of Hiroshima.” We went on to spend many years and many billions of dollars disparaging subsequent presidents: Eisenhower as a war-mongering “shark” run by the military-industrial complex, Johnson as a mafia boss who had bumped off his predecessor, Nixon as a petty tyrant, Ford as a dimwitted football player and Jimmy Carter as a bumbling peanut farmer. In 1978, when I left Romania for good, the bloc intelligence community had already collected 700 million signatures on a “Yankees-Go-Home” petition, at the same time launching the slogan “Europe for the Europeans.”

During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America’s presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren’t facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.

The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the U.S. from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion. Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another million tried to escape, but many died in the attempt. This tragedy also created a credibility gap between America and the rest of the world, damaged the cohesion of American foreign policy, and poisoned domestic debate in the U.S.

Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America’s commander in chief. One speaker, Martin O’Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce the American commander in chief as a “deserter.” And visitors to the national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat depicting the American president surrounded by the words, “Give Bush the Boot.”

<snip>

Now we are again at war. It is not the president’s war. It is America’s war, authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators. I do not intend to join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should handle this war, and they don’t know either. But I do know that if America’s political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: “We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West.”

Exactly!  Unfortunately, all that matters is who wins the Whitehouse and Congress… not who wins the war.

Spot on commentary at Wizbang on the brouhaha over the revelation that a Thompson advisor was convicted of selling pot 28 years ago… wonder if he inhaled?

Miss Beth over at Wake Up America slams abortion supporters, but please be advised before you click on over to the link… graphic photos of partial birth abortions that will very likely sicken you if you are human… if not, perhaps there is room for you on the Dem ticket next November… here’s the link, but again, graphic image warning.  But it’s all just hypothetical “intellectual” discussion that candidates use for political gain without ever facing the horrible reality of what is truly infanticide…  no, even that is too sanitized… this is killing babies out of convenience, period.  Let’s see a debate moderator have the guts to throw one of these images up on a large screen behind the candidates and ask them, one by one, if they support partial birth abortion… how’s that for a gotcha moment Hillary?

Bottom Line Up Front takes a look at the major victory in the war on terrorism happening in Iraq; something that is apparently not worthy of major headlines. I can’t help thinking, again, what the outcome of WWII would have been had today’s media been reporting back then and had the political climate been such that acquiring and holding power within the US government would have been more important than winning the war.  How many times would we have surrendered and pulled back to within our borders? How many hearings would we have been held to get to the bottom of all this killing going on during the war? How many soldiers would have been accused of war crimes for split second decisions made on the field of battle?  Be sure to read the reader comments too…  such as this one from Johnny:

Wow, that article by Andrew Bolt is very moving. If a tenth of it is true, I feel totally vindicated for having fought there in 2003 to take down Saddam’s Ba’athist regime. May God bless the efforts to secure Iraq!

That’s all for now… have a gret one!

Seriously?

Going into Iraq to find terrorists… bad?

Going into Pakistan, an ally in the terror war whose president has risked his life to support the United States… good?

Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) on getting tough with terrorists:

From AP: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

Hmmm.. maybe Hillary Rodham Clinton is right. What exactly warrants sending troops across the border of an allied country without permission?

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

Canada better pay attention here… there are known terrorist cells in Canada and Obama might just have to get tough on our neighbors to the north and send in the troops.

“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

If only we could get those terrorist holed up in those mountains, we could end this whole thing.  After all, the rest of the terrorists in the world would cease to exist if we get rid of the hole-in-the-wall gang of terrorists.  I guess it’s kind of like vampires.  If you can kill the head vampire, the others lose all their powers and just evaporate, or whatever it is vampires do when they stop being undead.

I guess Pakistan president Musharraf won’t be on the invite list to the White House along with Kim Jung Il and Ahmadinejad when he has his little get together with the world’s terrorism sponsors.

For the record now…

BHO was against invading Iraq, a major sponsor of terrorism with a leader who was threatening the use of chemical and biological weapons and who was trying to obtain the necessary ingredients to develop a nuclear device, and OBO proudly wears this position (not a vote, action or even a tough decision for him since he was not even in Congress to vote on the topic) on his sleeve.

However, he is now on record as saying he would have no problem with INVADING AN ALLIED NATION!

Yep.. finally found something HRC and I agree on…

More thoughts in the blogosphere on the topic:  DeMediacratic Nation, Michelle Malkin, Wake up America, Texas Rainmaker

What if… the United States leaves Iraq victorious instead of in retreat… 

What if… the “surge” works… 

What if… well… what if President Bush leads us to a victory in spite of those in Congress who throw up roadblocks and nonsensical distractions at every turn and seem resigned to a defeat that will lead to victory for them in the polls… 

What if you loved your country so much that you want us to win in Iraq but you love to hate George Bush so much you are ready retreat in shame to prove he is wrong? 

The irrational hatred of George Bush appears to be blinding many and making it nearly impossible to cut through the rhetoric to see the reality.  

But the facts on the ground are indisputable and will, hopefully, seep into the mainstream thinking of the American psyche so that perhaps we can move beyond the irrational doom and gloom surrounding the news about Iraq which is tainting the morale of a country, whose recovery from 9/11 is nothing short of miraculous, and allow us to feel good about our future, even if it does mean a few less votes for the liberal naysayers whose power continuance is so dependent on us feeling like all hope is lost. 

Thanks to Gina Cobb for highlighting a good op-ed in the NY Times that might just serve as a stepping stone to pulling ourselves out of a somewhat self-induced nightmare that is being fed by liberal hypnotists constantly reminding us how bad our lives are today. 

Only excerpting a small piece to pique your interest, but Gina has more or you can visit the NY Times via the link above: 

(By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK) VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. 

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. 

(snip)

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference. 

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. 

(snip)

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008. 

While not exactly pointing to a stroll in the park that will lead to victory without set backs, this op-ed in the NY Times, no right-wing rag, does indicate we are moving in a better direction. I know I’m rooting for us.

Even if you love hating George Bush, I hope you love your country more. 

Update: Spree over at Wake up America drives home the point… some folks have put all there chips on the US to lose and winning will cost them too much. Just like in sports, if you bet on the other team, the temptation is strong to throw the game.