Archive for the ‘Iraq’ Category

Headline: “Afghan War Likely to ‘Absorb’ Potential Savings From U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq”

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009

Interesting headline at FoxNews…  more from the article:

President Obama’s projected savings of $1.5 trillion over 10 years by scaling back the wars may be undermined by his request for $68 billion in military spending in Afghanistan next year, marking the first time more war funding will be spent in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

That proposal may ultimately cost more than what the Obama officials said could be paid for by withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Here at Thinkin’Bout Stuff, following the September 28 presidential debate, I said:

A couple of areas that I think should have been explored further: Obama indicated troops need to be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan and other countries that harbor Al Qaeda; then seconds later he says we can not improve health care because of the $10b/month it costs keeping troops in Iraq. If those troops are redeployed elsewhere in the world, how does Obama plan to redirect those funds to domestic programs like health care… sounded like double counting. This is not new.. I heard him say this same thing in the past and discussed it here at the time.

Looks like it was double counting… so much for $10b/month being redirected from Iraq to health care…

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Sec. of State Clinton: Bush Policy in Iraq Overwhelming Success

Saturday, April 25th, 2009

OK.. that’s not quite what she said, but she might as well have said it because the alternative is that team Obama has somehow managed to turn Iraq around in 100 days without lifting a finger:

Fox News: “I think in Iraq there will always be political conflicts, there will always be, as in any society, sides drawn between different factions, but I really believe Iraq as a whole is on the right track,” she said, citing “overwhelming evidence” of “really impressive” progress.

So for all you Bush haters keeping score out there…

Iraq is now an ally instead of an enemy.

Iraq is no longer an oppressive regime.

Iraq no longer has Uday and Qusay torturing men and women for sport.

Iraq is no long a state sponsor of terrorism.

And to think… just a few months ago, Harry Reid was declaring defeat and Obama was demanding we pull out all forces immediately…  good thing we had a president who didn’t agree that America should cut and run from this fight.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Leftist Loon Leaky Leahy’s Loquacious, Ludicrous Litany

Monday, February 9th, 2009

From Reuters:

A U.S. “truth commission” should investigate Bush administration policies including the promotion of war in Iraq, detainee treatment and wiretapping without a warrant, an influential senator proposed on Monday.

Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, urged a commission as a way to heal what he called sharp political divides under former President George W. Bush and to prevent future abuses.

He compared it to other truth commissions, such as one in South Africa that investigated the apartheid era.

Ah yes, the path to healing is always paved with inquisitions and comparisons to apartheid.  Not sure what this guy is smoking, but he may want to get himself checked considering the post before this one.

War in Iraq?

At the time, everyone believed Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, we knew he had used them before, we knew he coveted nuclear weapons, we knew he was funding terrorists, we knew he was shooting at our fighter jets, we knew he was refusing to comply with UN resolutions, we knew the “first” Iraq War was not over but actually in a cease fire mode, we knew Hussein was killing his own people with chemical weapons, we knew he was maiming and torturing dissenters, we had Democrat senators like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry fighting for time in front of the cameras to sound tough during the lead up to military action, and we knew that regime change was the official policy of the Clinton administration.

There… I saved you millions of tax payer dollars.  I can write it up and send it to your office Senator.

Detainee treatment?  Yeah, there were some really bad incidents that should be, and have been, punished.  Maybe we should focus on having a “truth commission” for our current president instead of worrying about the guy who just left.  Every day it seems like I easily spot at least one lie.

Wiretapping without a warrant?  Thought that issue was resolved when the DEMOCRATIC Congress passed a law in 2007 affirming it’s legality.

“We need to come to a shared understanding of the failures of the recent past,” Leahy said in a speech at Georgetown University.

“Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened,” he said. “And we do that to make sure it never happens again.”

Right… good to know an “influential senator” who was involved every step of the way now needs a “truth commission” to find out what really happened… very Orwellian of him.  Good to know this has nothing to do with vengeance… actually didn’t think it did.  More like an irresistible obsession with the hatred of all things even marginally on the conservative side of the spectrum.

“If every administration started to reexamine what every prior administration did, there would be no end to it. This is not Latin America,” the Judiciary committee’s top-ranking Republican, Senator Arlen Specter, told reporters last month.

Case in point, Bill Clinton who skated away from prosecution because George Bush rightly decided that it was not in the best interest of the country.

President Barack Obama suggested shortly before he took office in January that he did not favor prosecuting Bush administration officials over their counterterrorism policies, but said he would look into “past practices.”

How nice of him.  Perhaps in 4 years, if Obama somehow manages to keep us safe, the next president will show him the same kindness.

Issues to investigate would include the Justice Department’s firings of several U.S. attorneys, which Leahy said may have been motivated by a White House aim to influence elections, policies on the treatment of terrorism suspects and other areas “where (congressional) committees were lied to.”

Will you please just get over it!  President Bush, just like every other president, has the absolute authority to fire US attorneys and can do so without cause, for any reason, or for whatever reason… why does Leahy insist on wasting taxpayer time and money…  oh, silly me… he’s a liberal.

This included the war in Iraq, he said. “There were lies told to the American people all the way through.”

Get… over… it…

Even if there were lies, and there probably were, is this really the precedent we want to set?  But the lies he is referring to were not lies at all and, unless he is studying at the Rosie O’Donnell school of idiotic conspiracy theories, he should know better.

Bush has acknowledged that intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was wrong, but said he never lied to the public about the war.

Gee, maybe that’s because Bush never said we were invading Iraq because of the weapons.  And if Leahy or any other senator knew there were no weapons, why didn’t they say something.  Because they didn’t know.  In fact, leading up to the war, nuts like him were shouting about all of the casualties we would incur by invading Iraq; that our troops would die in the tens of thousands from chemical and biological attacks; that Iraq was so strong we had no chance.

Then after we won so fast, they started complaiining that it was too easy… can’t make these guys happy unless it’s their guy in the White House.

Leahy said he wanted the Defense Department investigated for filming Iraq-war protesters, which he said came “shockingly close” to the FBI’s Vietnam War-era Cointelpro operation to investigate domestic war protesters. “We fought a revolution in this country so we could protest the actions of our government,” he said.

Yes.. shockingly.  Please….    And about that “revolution”, you didn’t do anything but make it impossible for this country to fight that war in Vietnam in a way that it could be won.  Should we have been there?  Probably not.  But you can blame Kennedy and Johnson for getting us deep into that “quagmire”.

I’m getting to the point where, contrary to Michele Obama’s view, for the first time in my life I’m not proud of my country… not when the loons are running the show.

I hope we don’t wake up four years from now with a socialistic headache for which there is no cure.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Wow… someone actually asked Joe Biden some real questions

Sunday, October 26th, 2008

Check out this interview of Joe Biden by WFTV’s Barbara West (which has led to the Obama/Biden campaign punishing WFTV for this “unprofessional” interview):

YouTube Preview Image

As the interview goes on, Biden gets more and more irritated. Biden responded to legitimate questions with talking points and indignation about being asked these questions.

I actually think there were opportunities for follow up questions, but I suppose there was the risk that Biden would have stormed off in a huff.  Some observations..

When Biden said “We haven’t paid then (ACORN) one single penny to register a single solitary voter”, would like to have heard him explain the approx $800k the campaign paid to ACORN

Would like to have heard how Biden can draw an equivalency between McCain speaking at an ACORN event and Obama being a trainer for ACORN, being an attorney for ACORN, giving money to ACORN and benefiting from ACORNS illegal tactics.

Great questions on spread the wealth around, Marxism and socialism, totally blew him away.  Would have liked to hear Biden explain how it is a “tax cut” to write checks to folks who pay no income tax.  Although it was enlightening to hear that Bush’s ta cuts have spread the wealth around from middle class families to the rich… I didn’t know we have been writing checks to “rich folks”. 

Biden loves to quote “facts” and statistics with such authority that he actually sounds like he knows what he’s talking about.  Unfortunately, later when the facts and stats are proven wrong, it’s too late, the lie is already a reality to those who heard his words.  A good example was his debate with Palin where he was flat out wrong on so many of his assertions.  I think his assertion that 1% make over 21% of the income in America might fit into this category.  Of course, you won’t hear him tell us what percent of the income tax the 5% of Americans he and Obama plan to tax currently pay.  Oh, and if you really believe it will only be the top 5% getting a tax increase, you must be new to politics.

About Biden’s assertion, when he didn’t realize the press was listening, that the world will test Obama because he’s new on the scene, Biden followed the campaign spin and tried to change the meaning of what he said to a more general statement that whoever is elected will be tested.  That is clearly not what he said, that is clearly not what he meant.  Would like to have seen him pressed more on the response, but I doubt he would have responded anyway.  Amazing that he actually was able to spin this so far around that now his statement was supposed to have meant that Obama is much better prepared to deal with any crises that surfaces than McCain.  Well… let’s listen to what he actually said:

YouTube Preview Image

Sorry Joe, we marked your words as you suggested.  Your spin appears to be an outright lie.  You were clearly pointing to the world testing Obama with a GENERATED CRISES with the intent to TEST THE METTLE of Obama.  Not a crises because of our economy.  Not a crises because of dangers around the world.  A CRISES THAT WILL BE GENERATED TO TEST OBAMA.  You said it and I believe it. 

Why does Biden keep insisting we were not greeted as liberators in Iraq.  was there an insurgency subsequent to the liberation? Yes.  But that does not change the fact that we were greeted as liberators.  That also does not change the fact that the Iraqi’s are better off without Saddam.  But it is popular to rewrite history these days.

These folks look pretty damn happy, from CBS news:

YouTube Preview Image

How about these folks:

YouTube Preview Image

Remember this guy?

YouTube Preview Image

Condi Rice on the liberation:

YouTube Preview Image

A search on Saddam Crimes on YouTube finds videos I will not post here showing some of the methods used by this ruthless dictator… I thought Biden and Obama were all about helping oppressed people, or does that only apply if a Democrat is in the White House.

So were there big problems after the liberation?  Yes.  But that does not diminish the liberation.  Sad that the American people are being purposefully mislead to believe we failed in Iraq.  Again, there were failures in Iraq, but we did not fail in Iraq… every war has failures, mistakes, setbacks… but in the end… a simple question senator… are the Iraqis better off today than they were before the US liberated the people of Iraq? 

Biden also conveniently forgets, as is his job as Obama’s shill, that Obama would have pulled troops out of Iraq a year ago BEFORE the security issues were resolved and that it was McCain who pushed for the “surge” that now has us in a position to win in Iraq and withdraw our troops confident we leave behind a place that is better than before.  I suppose that’s irrelevant to a man who wanted to just split the country into three new countries and leave.

At about 4:25 of the video, you can see Biden can’t believe he’s really being asked these questions…

Kudos to the WFTV reporter who had the guts to ask real questions.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Blogosphere has a long memory…

Saturday, September 27th, 2008

Today we play, what did he really say…

On invading Pakistan:

From AP August 1, 2007 (link dead, but I have some of the original text) – 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.

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.

“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.”

Now, I won’t deny that a covert operation to take out Osama bin Ladan or other terrorists would be a good thing… but announcing intentions to do so is hardly covert and is irresponsible for someone who wants to be president. 

On meeting with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and North Korea.. in his own words:

YouTube Preview Image

And as an added bonus, I transcribed the question and the answer for you:

Question – In 1982 Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.  In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Obama – I would! And the reason is this, that, the notion that somehow not talking to countries, ah, is punishment to them, ah, which has been the guiding, ah, diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.  Now Ronald Reagan, and Democratic presidents like JFK, constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil …  evil empire.  And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them, they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country.  Ah, but we have the obligation to find, ah, areas where we could potentially move forward.  And ah, and I think that it is, ah, a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.  We’ve been talking about Iraq, one of the first things that I would do in terms of, ah, moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward, ah, is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria, because they’re gonna have responsibilities if Iraq collapses, they have been acting irresponsibly up until this point, but if we tell them that we are not gonna be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that, ah, they are gonna have to carry some weight in terms of stabilizing the region.

What’s interesting here is agreeing to meet without precondition is only the tip of this iceberg:

  • The foundation for Obama’s justification is flawed because this “ridiculous” principle is one that has been followed well before the Bush administration. Reagan never met with any leader of the Soviet Union without precondition and JFK’s meeting with Khrushchev was nearly disastrous and led us to the brink of nuclear war… yeah that worked out well.  We dealt from a position of weakness and lost.
    • In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev saw JFK as a weak, inexperienced figure whom the U.S.S.R. could easily bully. In June of 1961, the two world leaders met at a summit in the Austrian capital of Vienna. The central issue for discussion was the fate of Berlin. At the end of World War II, the German capital had been divided, along with the nation itself, into two zones: Communist East Berlin and democratic West Berlin. Since the city as a whole lay in Communist East Germany (which was, in turn, under the thumb of the U.S.S.R.), the Communists were constantly threatening to cut off access to West Berlin, thus strangling the democratic half of the city. In Vienna, Khrushchev renewed this threat, suggesting that the Soviet Union might sign a treaty with East Germany that would cut off all access by western nations to West Berlin. JFK stood firm, and the promised blockade never materialized; but the East Germans did throw up an ugly concrete and barb-wired wall between East and West Berlin, to prevent their own people from leaving for the West. The Berlin Wall became a symbol of the Cold War, one that would endure until 1989.

      The true challenge for JFK, however, lay still ahead. Khrushchev, probing for weakness, authorized the construction of Soviet missile bases in Cuba, from which the entire United States could be threatened with nuclear attack. On October 16, 1962, JFK’s military advisers handed him aerial reconnaissance photographs showing these missile emplacements. Many of the president’s generals urged an immediate invasion of Cuba, but JFK held out hope for a peaceful settlement. On October 22, he announced that a United States naval and air quarantine would go into effect, preventing any further missile shipments from Russia to Cuba. He also demanded that the Soviets remove any and all nuclear weapons already in place.So began the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war. As Russian ships steamed closer to the blockade cordon, a flurry of telegrams shot back and forth between Washington and Moscow. Khrushchev, alternately conciliatory and bellicose, claimed that he was only trying to protect Castro’s government from U.S. invasion, and then suggested that the missiles might be removed if the U.S. dismantled its own Jupiter missiles in Turkey, just across the Black Sea from the Soviet Union. On Wednesday, October 24, Russian ships steaming toward Cuba turned back, and by the end of the week an agreement had been struck: Khrushchev would remove the missiles from Cuba in return for JFK’s public pledge that the U.S. would cease trying to undermine Castro’s government, and his private pledge that the U.S. would dismantle the Jupiter missiles in Turkey.
  • He believes it is a disgrace that President Bush has not spoken to the leaders of any of these countries face-to-face? I don’t think Iran, Syria and North Korea are brand new enemies… so I guess we have a history of disgraced presidents in Obama’s opinion.  They were all wrong, he’s right.  And why should we doubt him, after all, he has years of experience as a state senator.
  • We have the obligation to find areas where we could potentially move forward?  If only we had chatted over tea and crumpets with Hitler, we could have avoided that whole Holocaust thing.. oh wait, what am I saying. We mustn’t upset Ahmadinejad by implying the Holocaust really happened.  So where is that area of common ground we so hope to find with Iran?  I can’t even imagine what would be acceptable to a leader who wants to vaporize Israel.. maybe he’ll give us time to evacuate the country.
  • Iran and Syria have been acting irresponsibly?  Is that what we call killing US troops in Iraq these days?  Bad Iran!  Bad Syria!  Go to your rooms!
  • Since Obama plans to not leave an occupying force (is that what our future president calls US troops that have liberated a country, an occupying force?  Nice…), we must make certain Syria and Iran will promise they will behave responsibly after we leave.  Maybe we can even get them to sign a piece of paper.  But who better to act as a stabilizing force in the region than the man who has vowed to vaporize Israel?  Is he really this naive?  Scary.

Please… listen to what he says before his handlers spin him back around in the right direction, because if he does get elected president, there are no Mulligans in the real world.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Biden: Obama will end this war in Iraq

Wednesday, September 24th, 2008

Speaking live in Cincinnati right now, Biden is setting the stage for Obama to take the credit for some fictional future end to the Iraq war. 

Someone give these guys a quarter so they can buy a clue.  What war in Iraq are they referring to?

And he just misspoke again, quoting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as saying “we are not winning in Iraq”… um, no, he never said that.  Here’s the actual quote:

“I’m not convinced we are winning in Afghanistan. I am convinced we can”

He did not say anything about Iraq, he did not say we are not winning.  If you are going to quote someone, then quote him.  He is not convinced we are winning in Afghanistan… nor should he be.  Not easy to define victory in this war against Islamic terrorists. 

You watch, if Obama gets elected, either we will magically declare victory or it will suddenly become impossible to define victory and we will be asked to understand the complexity of this kind of war.  Until then, the victory will continue to be  defined as finding OBL… Biden is going down that path as I type.  He is spewing the same old totally debunked position that al Qaeda exists only in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

Biden has been wrong on foreign policy positions over and over and over again throughout his career, and now he is acting as Obama’s mentor on foreign affairs… scary thought.

No time to write on this, but check out this at Bottom Line Up Front:

Iraqi Parliament Passes Provincial Election Law

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Refreshing bit of honesty from a Democrat

Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

This is exactly the type of behavior that, if we are not careful, might help to bring this country back together. 

The hate on the far left and right has acted like a pair of giant polar magnets ripping us apart for more than a decade.  After 9/11, most believed the attack from without would help to heal the self-inflicted wounds from within. 

Sadly left-wing loons, led by the likes of MoveOn, picked at the freshly healed scars, diving in like a persistent staph infection to deepen the wound and leave an everlasting festering sore upon our great nation in a desperate attempt to remold the basic foundation of our society to suite their warped view of the world.

Enter Lanny Davis, not someone who typically comes to mind when I am thinking “reconciliation”.  In an opinion piece published July 21 in The Washington Times, he says:

I remember the exact moment I had my first serious doubts about whether I was 100 percent right that the U.S. pre-emptive invasion of Iraq and the take-out of Saddam Hussein was a serious mistake.

I had been strongly opposed to the U.S. intervention from the start. I felt this way even though I believed (as did most everyone, including the intelligence community) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and even though I thought that he was a murderous, genocidal thug and the world would be better off – and the U.S. safer – with him dead.

However, I reasoned, the WMD inspectors were back in, and we had Saddam surrounded – thanks to George Bush, by the way, for which we Democrats did not give him sufficient credit at the time.

<snip>

But … then came my first moment of doubt.

I saw on TV in early 2005, in their first preliminary democratic elections, long lines of Iraqis waiting to vote under the hot desert sun with bombs and shrapnel exploding around them. Waiting to vote!

And then there was that indelible image – an older woman shrouded in a carpetlike cape, smiling gleefully and holding her purple finger in the air for the TV cameras, purple with ink showing that she had voted.

Smiling! In the middle of war! At U.S. troops standing nearby!

Wow, I thought. Is it possible I was wrong?

Is it possible, I wondered, that Iraqis truly did want democracy and freedom and the right to vote and government of the people, just as we Americans do? And were willing to fight for it, with our help?

Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Even a great thing?

Maybe another democracy, however imperfect, other than Israel in the Middle East could lead to more moderation, possibly other democracies? Democracies that could serve as bulwarks against al Qaeda-type of terrorist states?

<snip>

And then in early 2007 came the surge, which so many of us in the antiwar left of the Democratic Party predicted would be a failure, throwing good men and women and billions of dollars after futility. We were wrong.

The surge did, in fact, lead to a reduction of violence, confirmed by media on the ground as well as our military leaders.

It did allow the Shi’ite government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the last several months to show leadership by joining, if not leading, the military effort to clean out of Basra the masked Mahdi Army controlled by the anti-U.S. Shi’ite extremist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and from the Sadr City section of Baghdad he claimed to control.

This willingness by the Shi’ite-dominated al-Maliki government to move against the Sadr Shi’ite extremists won crucial credibility for the government among many Sunni leaders and Sunnis on the streets, who joined together with Shi’ites to turn against the al Qaeda in Iraq and other Taliban-like extremists.

These are facts, not arguments.

<snip>

I just know I can’t get out of my mind that lady with the purple finger held up, smiling into the camera. If getting in was a mistake, then getting out – how and when – is not so simple as long as there is hope that she can someday live in a democratic Iraq that can help America in the war against terrorism.

I clipped the paragraphs I found most compelling, but encourage you to read the whole article by visiting the link above.  I do not agree with some of what Mr. Davis says in this article, but I do appreciate the character he displays by admitting he was wrong… something we can all learn from.

There is no shame in making a mistake or being wrong; the shame comes from not admitting it in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share