Underestimated Or Ignored

Barack Obama claims that his regime underestimated the rise of ISIS and overestimated the ability of the Iraqi military to fend off that group. Obama made these statements in a 60 Minutes interview.

George W Bush warned that leaving Iraq before the place was stabile and not having a small force in place would result in some group filling the void. He was pretty clear this would happen.

Mitt Romney reiterated this during the debates with Barack Obama. Obama laughed him off.

It is now obvious that Bush and Romney were correct and Obama was wrong. But did Obama underestimate?

Probably not. He is a narcissist and thinks he knows everything. He was aware of what Bush said and Romney told him point blank what would happen so he knew.

He just chose to either ignore or not believe the information. I believe he ignored it because he did not want to give any credit to Bush or Romney. He did not want to say that they were right because he was supposed to be so smart.

He ignored it and now we are using our military to clean up the mess he made. It is pretty telling that the man who said that we could not solve the issues there with our military is now saying we need to use our military to solve issues there.

He should have listened and with ears that big he certainly was able to hear.

Perhaps he was unable because of where he keeps his head…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


When Bush Did It The Left Went Nuts

Let me start off by saying I agree with bombing ISIS and any other terror group and I think the US should keep it up. I would say to bomb them back to the Stone Age but since they already live in that era I say bomb them back to before they existed. I have no problem with attacking them where they live rather than waiting for them to come here. I have no problem with preemptive strikes.

But I am not the problem here because I never held the view that we should not attack them.

Barack Obama and ALL the Democrats who opposed George Bush did though. They derided Bush for waging war in Iraq when they claimed Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and never attacked us. Afghanistan was the good war, they said.

So during Bush’s terms we had Code Pink and the rest of the anti war crowd along with the Democrats screaming about Bush’s War and George Bush attacking a nation that never attacked us, blah, blah.

Barack Obama arrived on the scene fresh from his community organizing state and US Senate gigs to claim the mantle of anti war hero and to stop George Bush’s illegal wars.

The US, along with coalition partners, has begun bombing ISIS and other terror groups in Syria. Syria has never attacked us and ISIS has never attacked out country. Yes, they murdered some Americans but they did not come to our home nation and attack us. Do I think we should avenge their deaths? Certainly but then again, I am not the problem.

The problem lies with those who were so vocal in their opposition to George Bush who now remain silent as their messiah attacks an enemy in a sovereign nation, one that did not attack us. The problem lies with those very groups who said we should not be at war and who told us to try and understand the other guy’s side of things.

Where are these groups now? Where is Nancy Pelosi? Where is Harry Reid? Where are the protest groups that were so up in arms about the Iraq war? Where are these people when Barack Obama is basically doing the same thing they attacked Bush for?

They are curiously silent on the matter.

George Bush got Congressional approval before he waged war and Barack Obama did not. George Bush told us exactly what would happen if we announced the date we were leaving and pulled completely out of the region and what he said would happen, did.

Barack Obama was against the war in Iraq and he campaigned on ending it. Barack Obama campaigned on what he perceived to be the lawless and unconstitutional acts of Bush and now he is doing the very things he campaigned against.

These people are hypocrites and it would do the nation well for them to lose their jobs in November (for those up for reelection). Barack Obama is a disgrace to this nation. Is he doing the right thing now? I think it is right to attack the enemy but I always did.

He did not. This is what happens when you have a progressive Alinskyite with no work experience, no military experience (and who actually loathes the military) and no real life experience running things.

Community organizers are rabble rousers, not leaders.

The left remains silent because it is their messiah who is doing the things they previously opposed.

We need to rally as a nation while we are at war but that does not mean we can’t question the integrity of the leader who took us to war.

If the nation had questioned that integrity during the campaign we might not have a hypocrite and first class amateur running things now.

And in all likeliness there would be no need for more war because the enemies would fear us.

No one fears Obama because he lacks anything resembling manhood and he is certainly not a warrior.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Obama’s War Posture Is Bush’s Fault

Barack Obama justified his use of force against ISIS by citing the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution that was signed by George Bush in 2001. Obama is claiming that he does not need any further authorization to engage ISIS because he is authorized under the AUMF. While some say he is evading Congress (which he most certainly is) he is probably correct about his authority under the AUMF.

Seems that Democrats have no trouble with Obama using the AUMF when they routinely claimed that Bush exceeded his authoruty when he was using it.

The real issue here is that Obama has been trying to repeal the very statute he is citing as his authorization. Obama claimed the law was dated and could be used as a way to involve America in more wars.

The AUMF is now nearly 12 years old,” he said. “Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. Washington Times

As recently as last week a National Security Council spokesperson stated that the goal was to “refine and ultimately replace” the AUMF so that Obama can “take America off a permanent war footing.”

Isn’t it convenient that Obama is using the very thing he wants to repeal to justify his actions? I think it would be fairly easy to get Congress to authorize the use of force against ISIS given that the group has beheaded two Americans.

Remember though, with Obama it is all about optics and politics. He is not upset that he played golf after discussing a beheading only that he failed to anticipate the optics of doing so.

In the case of the use of force politics is at play. If Obama uses a law signed by Bush he can avoid signing anything that would link him to the war against ISIS. The linked article points this out and goes on to indicate that Obama would prefer to work with Congress but if he went to that body and was rejected it would be “politically damaging.”

Since Obama never takes responsibility for anything (but takes credit whether he deserves it or not) it is no surprise that he would rather use something he can pin on George Bush.

While it will be easy for Obama to avoid blame and to point fingers I think it is just fine. I am thankful that Bush had the foresight to have an AUMF in place.

You see, Obama is a weak person (I can’t say leader because he could not lead a group of people out of a burning building) and without something already in place it is very unlikely he would have been able to muster the courage to get something done in order to strike ISIS.

Obama is probably happy that he does not have to spend a lot of time getting authorization because that would be a real burden.

To his golf outings…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Liberals Backtrack On WMD and War Powers

It is amazing how politicians see things when their party is in power as opposed to how they see them when they are not in power. When George Bush was the president Congress gave him authority to use military force and about three of the nearly twenty items dealt with weapons of mass destruction (WMD). When it was reported that no WMD were found and when the war in Iraq was in chaos liberals started talking about Bush’s illegal war and that he overstepped his authority.

Fast forward to now. Barack Obama has made a mess of Iraq and his “greatest achievement” is falling apart as terrorists slice through that country like Hitler through Europe. He is considering military action in Iraq and Nancy Pelosi has indicated that he does not need to come to Congress for approval because the authorities are already there as a result of the 2001 and 2003 legislation that Bush used to engage in Iraq.

Pelosi told reporters that she agreed that the president has all of the authorities that he needs in the authorizations to use military force passed by Congress previously.

“All of the authorities are there. That doesn’t mean I want all of them to be used, especially boots on the ground,” she said. “But I definitely think the president has all of the authority he needs by dint of legislation that was passed in 2001 and 2003.”

She appeared to be referring to the authorizations to use military force passed after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq. Neither of those authorizations have [sic] expired, although the official White House position is that the Iraq authorization should be repealed.

Obama is using, and Pelosi is supporting, the authorizations that the White House thinks should be repealed.

In other words, Pelosi and her liberal pals all said Bush did not have the authority to do what he did but that Obama has the authority, under the same legislation, to do what Bush did even though Obama thinks the authorization should be repealed.

This is how liberals think. They gave Bush authority and then said he abused it but now that Obama is doing the very same thing (or considering doing it) they say he has the authority.

Remember the claim that Bush lied about WMD? I told you then that a lot of the WMD made their way into Syria (where do you think Syria got the ones they used?) and that there was no doubt Hussein (Saddam, not Barack) stockpiled them. Some of them were declared to the UN inspectors and locked in bunkers. Remember the warnings about what would happen if they got into the wrong hands? But, but, he didn’t have any. Bush lied, people died.

Turns out that there are plenty of WMD in Iraq and while many of them have been degraded they are still lethal. The terrorists in ISIS have seized those chemical weapons.

Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.

Here is the CIA’s file on the complex.

Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.

These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.

Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantities of unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.

There were WMD in Iraq when the US issued its ultimatum and Hussein moved many to Syria. The rest are in bunkers and pose a threat if they fall into the wrong hands.

Well, they have fallen into the wrong hands and now they will be used by the blood thirsty ISIS animals to harm many more people.

If they end up in the US you can blame Pelosi and all the other liberals who screamed about ending the war and that no WMDs exist and all the BS about Bush lying.

You can blame Barack Obama for the inept way he has handled everything in Iraq. His ego led him to believe that the bad guys will love us if we appease them.

How is that working out?

While Obama dances around like his ass is on fire and his head is catching Iraq is literally disintegrating before our eyes.

Now the bad guys have chemical weapons, the ones the liberals said did not exist, and they WILL use them.

Government officials are putting a great spin on this about the items being old and unstable and how they doubt they can be used to make chemical weapons.

Are these the same experts who told us that the terrorists were defeated, in shambles? Are these the same folks who said that Iraq was stable and we could leave? Are these the same people who have been wrong so many other times?

The belief is that the chemicals could not be safely moved. Really? Does anyone think that will stop the people who have just scored the Holy Grail of terror weapons?

The ISIS leader said he is coming for America (IN America). I bet now he will be even more motivated to do so.

If some of these chemicals make their way here you can thank the liberals and their policies for the deaths that occur.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Taxes For You But Not For Me

Liberals love to talk about disparity and wealth redistribution. People like Barack Obama like to say that at one point he feels you have made enough so you should pay more in taxes as if he is the arbiter of what is enough. He is not alone in the liberal world. Bill and Hillary Clinton love to discuss how terrible America is with regard to taxes and how the evil rich people should just pay more.

The wealthy in this country pay most of the federal taxes in this country.

The interesting thing about all this is that these liberals do not put their money where their mouth is. John Kerry selected the box on the MA state tax form to pay at the lower rate and docked his yacht in another state to avoid taxes.

Barack Obama diverts some of his money to his children to avoid taxes on it.

Bill and Hillary Clinton, the liberal dream team, use every part of the law possible to avoid taxes.

Take the inheritance tax. That is the one where the government taxes your estate at about 40%. This means that after you pay taxes all your life the money that you already paid taxes on is taxed again at 40% when you die.

The government snaps 40% off the top before your heirs get what you left them. There are some limits so that only the higher estates are taxed but this is the group that liberals have been after all along and it is the group that many of them are in.

The Clintons are well into the 1% with their millions of dollars and their income is in the range they target when they espouse their redistribution schemes.

But, and this is a big but, when it comes to their own wealth the Clintons have set up trusts in order to avoid paying taxes. This is not to suggest they are doing anything illegal. The tax code allows it (and ALL politicians ensure the tax code helps their own wallets) and I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with is that the people who are always demanding that the rich pay more are the very ones who work to avoid that same fate.

All wealthy politicians work to reduce their tax burden (as well as the wealthy in general) so Bush, Romney, Buffett, Obama, and Clinton all work the tax code to ensure their burden is as small as possible. Even Harry Reid who famously claimed that Mitt Romney did not pay taxes games the system.

The big difference for me is that Romney, Bush and other wealthy conservatives (or those at least more conservative than the liberals) work to lower the amount of taxes everyone pays so we can all enjoy the same breaks as they. Liberals, on the other hand, work tirelessly to increase taxes on the wealthy (and everyone else) in order to fuel their insatiable appetite for OPM (Other People’s Money).

If they are going to demand more be paid by the wealthy then they should pay the absolute highest amount possible and lead by example.

Bill Clinton once said he did not pay enough in taxes as a rich guy but he sure works hard to pay as little as possible.

But they won’t because they are above the fray. They are special and we just don’t understand how it really is. You know, I even heard that Hillary and Bill left the White House dead broke. That little fact did not prevent them from purchasing a house that was more than a MILLION dollars or having one in DC that was about 5 MILLION.

No, they have no idea how life is for the real folks because these people have lived off the taxpayer for nearly their entire lives.

Now they take advantage of the tax system to avoid what they want to do to everyone else in their income brackets.

Can you say hypocrisy? How about elitist?

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog