07.18.08
Posted in American Military, Bush Administration, Election of 2008 at 23:55 by Toby Petzold
Here’s something from today’s Wall Street Journal (emphasis mine):
Mr. Obama has made a central basis of his candidacy the “judgment” he showed in opposing the Iraq war in 2002, even if it was a risk-free position to take as an Illinois state senator. The claim helped him win the Democratic primaries. But the 2007 surge debate is the single most important strategic judgment he has had to make on the more serious stage as a Presidential candidate. He vocally opposed the surge, and events have since vindicated President Bush. Without the surge and a new counterinsurgency strategy, the U.S. would have suffered a humiliating defeat in Iraq.
Yet Mr. Obama now wants to ignore that judgment, and earlier this week his campaign erased from its Web site all traces of his surge opposition. Lest media amnesia set in, here is what the Obama site previously said:
“The problem – the Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq’s political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq’s civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq’s political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.”
Let the arrogant schmuck dig himself in as deeply as pleases. When he finally deigns to visit the troops in Iraq, I wonder how many more lies he’ll be telling them to weasel out of his earlier miscalculations and negativity about their sacrifices for the future of the Middle East.
Permalink
07.04.08
Posted in American Military, Democrats, Election of 2008, Iraq, moonbats, stupidity at 01:27 by Toby Petzold
Regarding Barry Hussein Obama’s latest lie —this time about Iraq— ABC News’ Rick Klein writes:
There’s been lots of speculation this week about whether Sen. Barack Obama has an Iraq problem. He does now.
His comments Thursday, saying that he will “continue to refine” his plan to withdraw combat troops from Iraq inside of 16 months, seems likely to leave the campaign on the defensive on this issue for days or weeks.
And it increases the likelihood that his trip to Iraq later this month will not turn out like Obama wants it to.
Well, Barry doesn’t even want to go to Iraq, but McCain has apparently shamed him into it. This horseshit about “refining” his position on the withdrawal of our troops makes Obama just another lying hack politician. Klein concludes:
Obama’s migration to the political center has been well-documented, and is already a frame McCain is building around his candidacy. But Iraq — this is qualitatively different, an issue that lives on a higher plane, since opposing the war was the rationale for his candidacy in the first place.
Being opposed to the war may have been a major selling point, but let’s not lie about Obama’s candidacy. He is where he is because of his race. Period. The Leftists have taken over the Democratic Party and have installed an absolute fucking clown on their Presidential ticket for the sake of identity politics.
Obama’s nomination is the final proof of the Democratic Party’s contempt for their own country.
Permalink
07.03.08
Posted in America, American Military, Election of 2008, History, moonbats at 00:28 by Toby Petzold
The Left Coaster bloglord Steve Soto writes:
Obama needs to attack McCain’s perceived strengths and turn them into at least a net zero if not a liability. For guidance, see what Rove did to Kerry with the Swifties and then envision what Obama should do to McCain on national security and terrorism.
My old friend sees Obama attacking McCain’s military experience as a Rovian strategy (which, in Democratic circles, has lost little of its supernatural power to stupefy), but this is wrong for a very simple reason: John McCain didn’t come home from Viet Nam and slander America’s military; John Kerry did. I don’t know why Soto hasn’t figured this out yet, but it’s very clear. Americans don’t like people who slander the military, even when it’s a veteran. That’s why people have been kicking Wesley Clark’s idiotic ass all over creation the past several days. Americans know when someone’s a suckass sack of it.
The Swift Boat Veterans told the truth and shared their opinions about Kerry and it destroyed him. There is no plausible parallel in McCain’s life. The American People overwhelmingly perceive that McCain is a real patriot. Thus, when the cosmopolitan and better-than-you Barry Hussein Obama sends in the clowns to attack McCain, it stinks in the nostrils of real Americans. They simply won’t have it.
Please note again that Obama has done nothing but fuck up ever since he secured the nomination —and yet he continues to be shielded by a compliant press. Why is this happening? Because Big Media are afraid to be perceived as picking on Obamessiah. Because they are, for that reason, moral and intellectual snatches.
Permalink
06.30.08
Posted in American Military, Democrats, Election of 2008, Unexplained Mysteries, stupidity at 23:12 by Toby Petzold
Yesterday, Obama’s surrogate, Wesley Clark, told Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation that McCain’s service in the Viet Nam War was nothing too relevant to his leadership. Here’s part of their exchange (emphases mine):
SCHIEFFER: Well you, you went so far as to say that you thought John McCain was, quote, and these are your words, “untested and untried,” And I must say I, I had to read that twice, because you’re talking about somebody who was a prisoner of war. He was a squadron commander of the largest squadron in the Navy. He’s been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for lo these many years. How can you say that John McCain is un- untested and untried? General?
CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk. It’s a matter of gauging your opponents, and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, ‘I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it-’
What is he even talking about? What an absolute fucking idiot. What part of Obama’s experience in foreign policy and wartime diplomacy does this dolt hold above McCain’s decades of real experience? Where is the evidence of Obama’s superior judgement? Clark’s “argument” is an embarrassment to stupidity itself.
Not to be outdone, another of Obama’s surrogates, former NSC member Rand Beers, told a public audience today that McCain’s experience as a POW works against him:
While Barack Obama was urging supporters not to devalue the military service of rival John McCain, an informal Obama adviser argued Monday that the former POW’s isolation during the Vietnam War has hobbled the Arizona senator’s capacity as a war-time leader.
“Sadly, Sen. McCain was not available during those times, and I say that with all due respect to him,” said informal Obama adviser Rand Beers. “I think that the notion that the members of the Senate who were in the ground forces or who were ashore in Vietnam have a very different view of Vietnam and the cost that you described than John McCain does because he was in isolation essentially for many of those years and did not experience the turmoil here or the challenges that were involved for those of us who served in Vietnam during the Vietnam war.”
“So I think,” he continued, “to some extent his national security experience in that regard is sadly limited and I think it is reflected in some of the ways that he thinks about how U.S. forces might be committed to conflicts around the world.”
McCain spent five years in captivity as a POW in North Vietnam.
It’s hard to imagine a reason why Obama would send these idiots out into the world on his behalf to question the relevance of John McCain’s service in the Viet Nam War. Is Obama somehow trying out a line of attack to suggest that McCain is somehow unfit or unsound because of his years of isolation as a prisoner of war? If so, it’s an amazingly dirty angle to take for someone who has a lot to prove to the veterans of Middle America.
Let’s wait for the backlash and the inevitable disavowals.
UPDATE: Oops! I didn’t realize that Obama has already disavowed Clark’s idiocy. Andrea Mitchell says:
Here’s a statement from Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Wes Clark’s controversial comments about McCain’s military service. “As he’s said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain’s service, and of course he rejects yesterday’s statement by General Clark.”
Permalink
06.18.08
Posted in American Military, Bush Administration, Democrats, Election of 2008, Iraq, Islamofascism, Unexplained Mysteries at 00:02 by Toby Petzold
What happened to all of the Democrats’ tough talk on making the President cry uncle on the War for Iraq? I don’t know, but opposing the war there must not be as important as it used to be:
WASHINGTON, June 16 (Reuters) – Democrats in the U.S. Congress, who came to power last year on a call to end the combat in Iraq, will soon give President George W. Bush the last war-funding bill of his presidency without any of the conditions they sought for withdrawing U.S. troops, congressional aides said on Monday.
Lawmakers are arranging to send Bush $165 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to last for about a year and well beyond when Bush leaves office on Jan. 20.
What’s changed their minds? Is it the same thing Obama doesn’t want to have to acknowledge, but must, anyway?
Don’t forget that the War for Iraq has made us safer. International jihad was drawn to Iraq because we made that country the primary venue for taking on the Great Satan. After five years of fighting our best and bravest, what is the opinion of martyrdom now? As they continue to reject al-Qaeda and even Osama himself, the Muslim world is beginning to see that Uncle Sam’s judgements are altogether righteous.
Permalink
06.17.08
Posted in American Military, Democrats, Election of 2008, Iraq, Islamofascism, Unexplained Mysteries, moonbats at 23:20 by Toby Petzold
ABC’s Jake Tapper recently asked Barry Obama (emphases mine):
The Bush administration says, no matter what people think about other programs, other policies they’ve initiated, there has not been a terrorist attack within the U.S. since 9/11. And they say the reason that is, is because of the domestic programs, many of which you opposed, the NSA surveillance program, Guantanamo Bay, and other programs.
How do you know that they’re wrong? It’s not possible that they’re right?
Notice that Obama never answers the question:
Well, keep in mind I haven’t opposed, for example, the national security surveillance program, the NSA program. What I’ve said that we can do it within the constraints of our civil liberties and our Constitution.
TAPPER: They disagree, though.
OBAMA: Well, but the fact that they disagree does not mean that they’re right on this. What it means is, is that they have been willing to skirt basic protections that are in our Constitution, that our founders put in place.
And it is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States, but we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution. And there has been no evidence on their part that we can’t.
And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.
And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, “Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.”
So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.
Remember how the elites howled when Bush the Younger referred to terrorists in the days after the atrocities of 11 September 2001 as “these folks”? Remember how that was inappropriate and cowboyish? Well, now such constructions are acceptable because someone else is making them.
And when you look at how Obama evades Tapper’s question, he does so by dashing into the thicket of the Bill Clinton-John Kerry approach to America’s defense in the post-Cold War world: these terrorists can be handled through the judicial system. And why is that? Because anti-war liberals apparently believe that American Constitutional jurisprudence extends itself throughout the world and even into our combat theaters. Mo may be Mirandized —even though Mo would slash a hippie’s throat as soon as he would mine.
So where do liberals come by this imperialist belief in the United States Constitution? I have no idea. That they do, though, is an indication of their essential childishness. These are not the spiritual descendants of Wilson or FDR or Truman making the world safe for democracy or making us an arsenal of such a world; these are incoherent people, now isolationists and then, some other day, globalists. These miserable hippie bastards deem America’s military sacrifices only worthwhile if there’s no discernible strategic interest at stake. They do not support the troops because they cannot understand the value in winning the War for Iraq. They also do not support the troops because they reflexively charge anyone who supports the war, but has never served, as a chickenhawk who deserves the punishment of military service himself. You could ask Obama this very hour whether this war should have been waged and he would say no because he has never been anything more than a gainsayer on that point. He believes that that is his answer and trump card in one. That he has supposedly opposed the war from the start is asserted to be the final proof of his superior judgement and, yet, neither part of that equation is true. When does he have to start making sense? Shouldn’t it have happened by now —or is the intoxication of charisma too much for such concerns?
Permalink
05.28.08
Posted in American Military, Democrats, Election of 2008, Iraq at 23:29 by Toby Petzold
Barack Obama was wrong to put it on the street that John McCain’s proposal that they go together to Iraq is a political “stunt.” Bad move, dude. As Paul Mirengoff points out:
The question of visiting Iraq won’t go away if Obama is elected, either; in fact it will become more acute. If Obama hopes to retain respect from our armed forces and their leaders, he will have to visit Iraq before he abandons the country. But, depending on the situation in Iraq and what Obama learns on a visit, he could lose this respect if he abandons the country following a visit.
It is typical liberal cant that everybody supports the troops even if they don’t all support the mission. This is Obama’s line, too, usually accompanied by assertions of his own wisdom in opposing the War for Iraq ab initio. But when he has to face our troops along with McCain, how far do you think his anti-war rhetoric will fly? Those men and women have given a lot to see their efforts finally succeed —and they are, no matter how much the hippies wish we would be defeated. We have a strategic security interest in helping Iraq become a fully-functioning country and ally. This guy wants to withdraw and walk away from the future of a stable Middle East?
Obama will never become President.
Permalink
05.16.08
Posted in American Military, Democrats, Iran, Islamofascism at 22:12 by Toby Petzold
With thanks to the Power Line boys, read this David Brooks’ column for the latest on Obama’s approach to our enemies:
“The debate we’re going to be having with John McCain is how do we understand the blend of military action to diplomatic action that we are going to undertake,” he said. “I constantly reject this notion that any hint of strategies involving diplomacy are somehow soft or indicate surrender or means that you are not going to crack down on terrorism. Those are the terms of debate that have led to blunder after blunder.”
Obama said he found that the military brass thinks the way he does: “The generals are light-years ahead of the civilians. They are trying to get the job done rather than look tough.”
What “job” have Obama and the general officers of America’s military settled on? Since the first job of our armed forces is to prosecute war against our enemies, I’d like to know what Obama means by this. Invading Pakistan? I think he’s suggested as much before, so why doesn’t he address it more fully now? Is he in favor of undermining the government of Iran since he sometimes appears to understand that they are one of those “root causes” we need to know so much more about? Let’s hear him say what he ought to be saying —now that he doesn’t need to fight for his own nomination anymore.
Permalink
12.03.07
Posted in American Military, Bush Administration, History, Iran, Unexplained Mysteries, moonbats at 23:05 by Toby Petzold
Joe Klein is saying that’s he’s just spoken to a “senior U.S. intelligence official” who told him that the NIE was released now because
our “collection” capability within Iran has improved considerably over the past few years.
That would be directly attributable to our presence in Iraq. Such intelligence-collecting was finally possible once we were in a position to exploit the cross-border traffic between Iraq and Iran.
Thus, if one believes that Iran did suspend its nuclear weapons program, it must also be one’s belief that they did have one to suspend. Right? But why should the intelligence community —which has now apparently been upgraded to “IC” for Intelligence Community— even be trusted on this? Didn’t they and the President say just two years ago that Iran was furiously working away at nuclear weapons? Now that they supposedly aren’t, what are we to think?
That the dominoes keep falling. Future wars are averted because present wars are waged. The tacit and not-so-tacit threats of annihilation are justified when their outcome is peace.
I am eager to see how Dinnerjacket reacts to all of this. Maybe it will somehow serve to weaken his credibility with those who believed in all of his code words and suggestions of Iran’s right to the Bomb.
Permalink
Posted in American Military, Bush Administration, Iran, Islamofascism, moonbats at 19:20 by Toby Petzold
The Leftists in Big Media are calling the latest NIE report a refutation of the Bush Administration’s warnings that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
It’s great to know that the anti-Bush Left have recovered their confidence in our government’s intelligence agencies —although I can’t recall when it was they had any before we invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam. Anybody know? After all, one of the few standard deviations of the Leftist (or, schizophrenic) mind is its preoccupation with the CIA and the NSA and whatever else now falls under the DNI. They can’t be too sure now that the “intelligence community” knows what it’s talking about if it didn’t before, can they?
Did Iran, in fact, suspend its nuclear weapons program in 2003? If it did, why did it? Iran had been seeking the bomb for many years up to that point —only to stop cold? What could be the reason?
My guess would be the very near presence of the United States military —the single greatest guarantor of human freedom of the past century.
Permalink
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
