Biden Rewrites History
Feb 11, 2010 Political
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.
[tip]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. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Better Get Mr. Joe Wilson Plame On The Case
Dec 30, 2009 Political
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.
[tip]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. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Iran, Iraq, joe wilson, Obama, uranium, valerie plame
War Deaths Increase Under Obama
May 3, 2009 Political
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
[tip]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. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: combat deaths, gitmo, Iraq, Obama, terror
Now Afghanistan Is The Quagmire
Apr 9, 2009 Military, Political
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.
[tip]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. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: afghanistan, Democrats, funding, Iraq, Obama, quagmire, vietnam
By George, Bin Laden Was Responsible
Feb 23, 2009 Political
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…
[tip]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. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: 9/11, afghanistan, al-qaeda, bin laden, bloodshed, george bush, Iraq, terror attacks