…I was told I would be getting a third term of George W. Bush.

I voted for Sarah Palin, same result though as Barack Obama has now used military force in Libya to help topple a dictator who is slaughtering his people. That is what George Bush did in Iraq and the left was vehemently opposed. We were told that it was a quagmire and that we were nation building, all things the left opposes. Barack Obama was not in the Senate at the time as he was busy voting present in Illinois but he did assure us he would have voted against military action in Iraq.

I guess the people of Iraq who were being murdered by a brutal dictator do not carry the same weight as those in Libya. Oh I know, Bush talked about weapons of mass destruction but that was only about three of the twenty or so items in the authorization for force but why let the others get in the way of lefties screaming and hollering over military action.

Despite what Obama claimed and how superior he was supposed to be, it looks like he is a lot like George Bush in certain areas and this is not sitting well with his base. Drudge has this on his front page:

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: ‘Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world’…

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: ‘American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger’…

Let us see how the left handles Mr. Obama and his blatant aggression against another nation. I mean, who is he to tell the leader of another country what to do? Isn’t that what he and everyone like him screamed about with regard to Bush?

I doubt that we will send troops into Libya but we have launched missiles into that country and that is an act of aggression.

So where is Code Pink? Where are the left wing loonies and their cries over this aggression?

My guess is they are oblivious to it because their messiah Obama is the one doing it. They did not mind when Clinton launched missiles and they do not mind Obama doing it.

The D after their names allows them to do such things.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Obama and Biden opposed much of what George Bush did in Iraq and Obam told us that the surge was not going to work and would only increase sectarian violence. Of course, now that he pulls the levers, Obama employed a surge in Afghanistan. Obama did what Bush did and what he [Obama] said would fail.

Biden was on Larry king’s show and told the crypt keeper that Iraq could be one of the greatest achievements of the administration.

I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.

I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences. LA Times

Biden is happy they are using the political process rather than guns to settle their problems? What happened to the notion that the surge would lead to more violence? The successes there are not the result of Obama magically waving his wand and sprinkling fairy dust.

It seems to me that Bush should get the lion’s share of the credit for the successes in Iraq. Obama has not implemented any tactical changes that made the outcome different.

What amazes me is that when there is a problem the first thing Obama does is blame Bush. He inherited any problem but he takes credit for the successes.

You can’t play the game that way folks. If Obama is going to blame Bush at every turn for things that started when he was in office then it is only right that Bush get the credit for the good things that have transpired from those items which started when he was in office.

Anyone who has trouble seeing this double standard has overdosed on Kool Aid.

Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame’s husband, is the guy who was sent on a mission by Mrs. Plame, a so called covert CIA agent (I am still having trouble reconciling how she was supposed to be covert but you could call the CIA and ask for her and they would put you through), to see if Iraq was trying to obtain yellow cake uranium.

He came back and lied about a few things. He claimed that Hussein (the one in Iraq not the one in the White House) had not tried to purchase uranium though at the time he made the allegation there was reason to believe that he had. According to Fact Check:

Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.

Wilson also claimed that VP Dick Cheney had sent him on the mission but he was sent by his wife, not the VP. But this post is not about Joe Wilson and Iraq. It is about Joe Wilson and Iran.

We need Joe Wilson to quickly go to Kazakhstan and determine if Iran has been trying to purchase Uranium. Then we need him to hurry back and write a report and we need it to be done quickly. Obama’s tired butt will be back from Hawaii soon and he will deliver the State of the Union Address next month. We need to make sure he does not insert 16 words that will lead us to war with Iran.

This is all necessary because:

Iran is close to clinching a deal to clandestinely import 1,350 tons of purified uranium ore from Kazakhstan, according to an intelligence report obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday. Diplomats said the assessment was heightening international concern about Tehran’s nuclear activities.

Such a deal would be significant because Tehran appears to be running out of the material, which it needs to feed its uranium enrichment program.

The report was drawn up by a member nation of the International Atomic Energy agency and provided to the AP on condition of that the country not be identified because of the confidential nature of the information. My Way News

This is all looking eerily familiar. With the claim that a nation that some of us think is an enemy trying to sneak in uranium, with reports from unnamed sources, with heightened tensions, it all looks just like the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

There is a bit of a difference. Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions from the first Gulf War and our Congress gave authorization to use military force there. Iran has been an enemy for decades and we should have handled it before but it is unlikely that a Democratic controlled Congress would vote to authorize military force there at this point in time (and frankly we do not need another war).

So, we need Mr. Valerie Plame to quickly write up a report saying that none of this is true so we can avoid a fight that liberals have no will to start or complete.

Of course, we could just let the Israelis handle it and be done with it.

It will be interesting to see how Obama and his liberals handle this. We were told that Hussein was no threat to us and we had no right to go in there (a subject for another debate) so how will we be sold Iran? Will we be told that the uranium means nothing and that they cannot harm us (Obama said they were a little nation and not a threat) or will we be pitched a great story of how dangerous they are?

It will be interesting because it was the Dems who ignored the reports about Iran and then gleefully said I told you so when an incorrect (false?) report indicated Iran had no nuclear program. They had one and it was hidden. By the time we were informed about it they were well ahead of where we thought they would be. They also suddenly had a few more enrichment facilities. Perhaps if Democrats had not ignored what they were told. Well, you never could trust that George Bush to keep you safe.

In any event this will be a tough one for the Democrats. They already demonstrated their weakness on national security this week (maybe White House security was put in charge of the airports) and if they ignore Iran they will look even weaker. If they take action it will be in direct conflict with how they felt and what they said about Iraq.

Maybe they will just let Obama decide the matter. The way he deliberates and as long as it takes him to arrive at a decision, Iran should have enough nuclear weapons to cause the end of the world.

Like I said, let’s just “mind” our own business and let Israel settle the issue. At least we know the job will be done right.

April was the deadliest month in seven months as US fatalities in Iraq rose to 18. When George Bush was president the monthly war dead totals were plastered all over the MSM until they drastically decreased. At that time the MSM ignored the totals because the facts could have been viewed as favorable and hurt their chances of getting Obama elected.

Since Obama has been in office the credit for good developments has been given to him even if he opposed the act or had nothing to do with it. Bad things, on the other hand, are blamed on George W. Bush.

Well, Bush has been out of office for over 100 days now and that means Obama is responsible for what is happening in Iraq. In April the death toll for US troops rose to 18 and that rise is Obama’s fault. He has been parading around apologizing for America and placing the blame for the world’s woes on the US rather than where it belongs. He has demonstrated that he is weak, popular, but weak, and the leaders of other countries recognize that. Our enemies recognize that and they will exploit it.

Obama, like many of his ilk, fails to recognize the greatness of America and the fact that without America many countries would have ceased to exist or would be part of another right now. Instead, he apologizes and shows the people who would like to rid the world of us that we are led by a weakling who would rather kiss an ass than kick it.

The uptick in deaths is all on Obama. He has been ambiguous in his plans and he has shown the world that he does not have the will to fight when necessary.

I know, the libs will tell me that Obama was decisive with regard to the Somali pirates who were sent to Allah with a bullet to the brain. The pundits said that Obama showed he was large and in charge and that he was ready to be the Commander in Chief. Right. The military made sure the restrictive conditions that were placed on them were used to their advantage.

The left must have misunderstood what Obama said about the issue. His teleprompter puts it this way:

Wait a minute now; you misunderstood. I didn’t authorize ATTACKS on the pirates. I authorized A TAX on the pirates.

Let’s see if the MSM looks at the uptick in deaths as an Obama issue or if they ignore it. Since they tend to ignore the negative and accentuate the positive I have a feeling where this will end up.

Then again, they might just be a bit too busy worrying about Obama’s decision to possibly reopen military tribunals at Gitmo.

It sure sucks for him to have to do things Bush did. I guess he is finding out that things are a little different on the inside and that it is easy to talk a wonderful game but carrying through is another story. Talk is cheap.

I wonder if the ACLU will get its panties in a wad over this since the Sainted Won (a fellow Socialist) is at the helm.

Others:
Stop the ACLU

After 9/11 the United States went after terrorists in Afghanistan and then moved into Iraq thus fighting a war on two fronts. The Democrats were up in arms. Remember how Afghanistan was the right war and that Bush took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and allowed bin Laden to escape because he was focused on Iraq? Iraq was the quagmire, the new Vietnam, the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. If we wanted bin Laden all we had to do was follow GI Joe Biden into Afghanistan where his helicopter was forced down. Though it sounds good the reality is the chopper was forced down because of bad weather. It was snowing. The only thing Biden would find is Yeti.

Now that the sainted won is in control he has settled on some sort of draw down of troops in Iraq and he is beefing up the forces in Afghanistan, the right war, in the right place, at the right time. Or is it?

Now that Democrats have what they say they wanted, focus back on Afghanistan, they are changing their tune. Now Afghanistan is a quagmire.

“I can’t imagine any way I’d vote for it,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat and leader in the 77-member congressional Progressive Caucus. It would be her first major break with this White House.

Ms. Woolsey fears the president’s plan for Iraq would leave behind a big occupation force. She is also concerned about the planned escalation in Afghanistan. “I don’t think we should be going there,” she said.

Similar sentiments echo across the House. Rep. Jim McGovern (D., Mass.) said he fears Afghanistan could become a quagmire. “I just have this sinking feeling that we’re getting deeper and deeper into a war that has no end,” he said.

Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) dismissed Mr. Obama’s plans as “embarrassingly naive,” and suggested that the president is being led astray by those around him. “He’s the smartest man in American politics today,” Rep. Conyers said. “But he occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances.” Common Dreams

These statements are from people who are part of the party that claimed Afghanistan was the right war. This is where Bush failed to get bin Laden and where he took his eye off the ball. Though Resident Obama vacillated at first, to his credit, he is sending more troops and asking for more money to get the job done. This is something he said he would do when he campaigned and, for now, he is doing just that.

He will face opposition from his own party because now that they are in power and we have victory in Iraq (no thanks to any of them) they have decided that Afghanistan is now the wrong war as well.

It would appear that as long as Afghanistan could be used against President Bush in order to beat him up over Iraq, it was the right war. Now that we have won in Iraq and can refocus on Afghanistan that is no longer the right war.

I know that Democrats are in office and hold the majority and I know that the only thing they know about war is how to lose. They only care about winning one thing and that is elected office. Regardless of who is in the White House my attitude is still the same. There is only one way out and that is VICTORY.

Democrats should keep in mind that Bush won Iraq. Afghanistan now belongs to them. That was the war they wanted and that is the one they got and they will be responsible for the outcome. If they pull out and lose it will be on them.

Patton said it best. Americans love a winner and cannot stand a loser.

Don Surber has a post up describing who was resonsible for the bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was not George Bush as the left has contended for nearly seven years. You know, Bush lied people died, no blood for oil, blah, blah. I know that it will be hard for the 1960s dope smoking retread hippies to actually grasp this concept but the co-founder of al-Qaeda does not blame George Bush for the bloodshed. I know that when the Berkeley moonbats are sipping their lattes and reading their Communist newspapers they will choke on their tofu if anyone draws their attention to who is really to blame.

According to the guy who helped bin Laden found al-Qaeda (among others), Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, Osama bin Laden is the one responsible for all the bloodshed. Sayyid Imam al-Sharif reveals all this in the book he wrote while in prison in Egypt. So get ready moonbats and other America haters because this is what he said:

“Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers.”

Oh snap, that is going to hurt in the morning. George Bush was not responsible and his efforts are actually bearing fruit as this bad guy gives his assessment on 9/11 and other acts of terror:

The 9/11 attacks? “Ramming America has become the shortest road to fame and leadership among the Arabs and Muslims. But what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy’s buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours? That, in short, is my evaluation of 9/11.”

Fifth Column attacks from people who migrate to Britain and other nations? “If they gave you permission to enter their homes and live with them, and if they gave you security for yourself and your money, and if they gave you the opportunity to work or study, or they granted you political asylum,” then it is “not honorable” to “betray them, through killing and destruction.” Don Surber

As Surber points out, the reason they no longer mention the global war on terrorism is because we may have won. The statements of the co-founder of al-Qaeda is certainly persuasive with regard to the idea.

In any event, bin Laden is the one responsible for the bloodshed. Not George Bush or anyone else. The moonbats in the Drive By Media and the moonbats at places like the Daily POS had it wrong all along.

Their BDS did not allow them to see otherwise. But then again, they are part of the problem and not part of the solution so what should anyone have expected…

Barack Obama went out on his scare people into supporting the “stimulus” package tour and the questions asked of him were about his nominees who were tax challenged. Obama responded to questions about his nominees who failed to pay their taxes by saying they had made “honest mistakes.”

Obama then went on to say they did not want to give the impression that there were “‘two sets of rules’—one for his administration, and one for everyone else.” Brietbart

All but one of his challenged choices have withdrawn. Timothy Geithner was confirmed to run the Treasury even though he failed to pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes. Sure he paid them but only after he was nominated. Yes, there are two standards. Geithner KNEW he had to pay the taxes because he signed a document stating he understood that when he received money to pay them. He deliberately did not pay his taxes and he was confirmed. Joe the Plumber was delinquent by a fraction of the amount of Geithner and he was attacked by the left and its media wing. Joe was held to a different standard than Geithner.

Obama’s claim to have the highest standards is a farce. This claim is made all the time after some official writes strong rules. The reality is, there are already standards that government employees are held to and they are pretty tough ones. The regular employees must follow them or they get fired. The elected people are held to that “other” standard.

Let me be clear, writing rules on a piece of paper only means that there are tough standards written down. Failure to follow them means that the administration does not adhere to the tough standards. Obama has already granted waivers for some of his appointees because they could not meet the written standards. Obama has broken his own rules on at least 14 occasions by letting lobbyists serve in his administration.

He can talk the talk but he cannot walk the walk.

Obama said that these were honest mistakes though Geithner’s was anything but and it is unlikely that Daschle’s was either. When Democrats are caught doing something wrong they made an honest mistake. If a Republican does something wrong then it was deliberate and part of a culture of corruption.

Case in point, the War on Terror in Iraq. Nearly every credible intelligence agency in the world agreed with the assessment about WMD in Iraq. Our intelligence agencies gave the same report. George Bush presented it and used it as part of the justification to invade Iraq (only 3 or 4 reasons dealt with WMD).

The left, to this day, says that George Bush lied about Iraq. Never once did any of them entertain the idea that maybe mistakes were made. No, Bush lied and people died. That was the mantra then and it is the mantra now. He is a Republican so he MUST have lied. He and all the intelligence agencies could not possibly have made a mistake so they must have been lying.

Geithner and Daschle, paragons of virtue, well they just made honest mistakes.

Funny thing is Obama remained loyal to Daschle even though he was aware of the tax problems a fortnight before it was made public. Obama was with Daschle up to the bitter end and still pledged support for him even after he withdrew.

When George Bush was loyal he was playing ole boy politics.

Good job Brownie.

Good job Daschie.

No difference at all.

Change indeed.

Barry Obama wants to close Gitmo in order to appease the moonbats who think it is wrong to imprison people who want to kill us. Some of them have been cleared but that does not mean they are good people, it just means they can’t be held or put on trial. Obama promised moonbats that he would close Gitmo because he does not mind lying and he is naive so he did not have a clue as to what really goes on there.

Then he was elected and people expected him to fill that promise. Only he found that it was more difficult than he imagined because now he has to find a place for the terrorists to go. Bringing them here would be a disaster and cost him dearly especially if one of them were to be involved in an attack. How could that happen, Big Dog? These misunderstood souls are good people who were wrongly accused by George Bush.

The Pentagon reports that 61 of the former residents of Gitmo have returned to terrorism. That is right, after we released them they got back in the game and are determined to kill us. These are the kind of people Obama now needs to figure out how to handle. However, his waffling on the issue leads me to believe that since he is now realizing he is out of his league and that things look a lot different from the inside he will “close” it on paper and it will remain open for quite some time.

I wonder if this brash egomaniac who knows so much now understands that he was way off base when he said he would close it.

Then again, this is the guy who said he would IMMEDIATELY remove our troops from Iraq. I bet he does not do that on inauguration day. I bet they are still there in four years.

Source:
al-Reuters

Senator Joe Biden is in Iraq on a tour of the country that the US brought from dictatorship to a fragile democracy. It is unclear as to what Biden actually is doing there when he is only one week away from taking office as the Vice President but I suspect he is there on Obama business.

I referred to Biden as Senator Biden for a reason. He was elected with Obama to run the country but insisted on swearing in as a Senator, so for now he is a Senator and I believe that he is in Iraq ostensibly, as one.

Obama is big on saying there is only one president at a time and he needs to look like he is not stepping on toes so Biden swears in as a Senator and goes on a trip in that capacity and it will look like Senate business.

Maybe that is the skeptic in me but I don’t trust any of them. It could be that Joe wanted to visit his son (who is serving there) on the taxpayer dime. It would save him on airfare and he could personally deliver his message that daddy’s Senate seat will be held for him for two years until he can make it home safely (which I certainly hope he does).

What I want to know is, can we get Iraq to keep him? They need someone to replace Baghdad Bob. You remember him? He was the guy who kept saying the infidels were not near Baghdad and were dying in the streets as American tanks were rolling by. Well, Biden is perfect for a gig like that. He knows how to tell a lie with the best of them and he is a propaganda guru.

They can even call him the Grand Wizard of Ministry Propaganda and name him Obama bin Biden (PBUH).

It would not last long. They would ship him home before too long. Even the yarn spinning Muslims could only tolerate him for so long. Besides, they are still ticked at him for the plan to divide the country.

Then again, maybe Biden is there to confirm for Obama that the surge really did not work, just as the sainted one has maintained despite information to the contrary.

Source:
Breitbart

There were statements by those in Iraq that Barack Obama had spoken with them about delaying decisions of troop withdraws until after the election. Obama denied this and, of course, the media and the sycophants who hang on his every word took no notice.

Today, the Iraqi government stated that it was certain Barack Obama would not withdraw US troops too quickly and further stated that Obama told them as much.

Obama has “reassured us that he would not take any drastic or dramatic decisions,” Zebari told BBC television.

“He will consult with the Iraqi government and the U.S. military in the field, but believes strongly that a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq will put more responsibility on the shoulders of the Iraqi government. al Reuters

This puts Obama in a tough position and could help to pour cold water on any honeymoon he expects to receive. During the primaries, Obama stated that he would withdraw the troops immediately. He did not parse words and he did not leave wiggle room. He said that he would bring them home today. As the only person running who opposed the war (but who has no official record on it but would have voted present) he received a lot of support from moonbats who want our troops home immediately.

Obama drew heat for the irrational statement and gently moved to the center in the general and claimed that he would begin a responsible draw down of troops. This made some of the moonbats unhappy but they, and the media, overlooked it because they knew that comrade Barry had to be in the center in order to win.

Now Obama has won. He will be forced to take some tough decisions. He will have to decide to honor his immediate withdraw pledge or his pledge to Iraq not to go too quickly. If he chooses Iraq there will be many unhappy Democrats who will feel he went back on his word and he will be doing nothing differently than George Bush which will really tick off a lot of moonbats. If he takes them out quickly he will have broken a promise to Iraq. Obama will have to decide which master he wants to serve because he promised two different things to two different groups.

The Democrats who supported Obama (as well as all the others) voted on this theme of change and they will expect that change quickly. They will not want to wait because they have a lot of pent up emotion. They are at the peak and ready to orgasm and they need him to hurry and take them over the top. The longer he waits or if he takes decisions that run contrary to what they expect then he will be on the bad end of some very mad and rabid people.

The beauty is that he cannot blame George Bush. Up until now Barry has had Bush as a crutch. Someone broke wind, blame George Bush. Wall Street and housing trouble, ignore your party and blame George Bush. Global Warming, you got it-George Bush. Barack Obama ran a successful campaign against Bush but he will no longer have Mr. Bush to beat around.

He might try it for the first few months by claiming that Bush left him a mess but that will wear off quickly and people will begin to see the emperor in all his nakedness.

Couple this with all the other promises that Barry made and cannot possibly keep and it will be pandemonium on the left. Obama is not accustomed to the media and his loyal subjects rejecting him and he has a hyperinflated ego so it will hit him hard.

Toss in a bad decision or two in any crisis (one Joe Biden says is coming within 6 months) and this country will be in deep brown stuff and the left will be even more bonkers.

It will be fun to watch. As the loyal opposition I will be there to help the chaos along.

As an aside, one of my commenters has a great suggestion for small business owners. You are going to be creamed by Obama and his tax plans. You will likely have to fire a few employees. The recommendation is to find out which of your workers voted for Obama and when you have to let someone go, fire them. You know which ones voted for him…

This is a great idea for everyone. If your church supported Obama stop giving to them. If you deal with charities on a regular basis and they supported Obama, stop giving to them. Make sure they suffer the consequences of their actions.

I now limit my contributions to the military organizations who help our troops. That is what little money I make from my ads goes to and I will continue that. As for the rest, well I can’t afford them and Obama’s moochers.

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.