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.

Hillary thinks she’s above showing a little leg, but she’s wrong. Get feminized, woman, or forget about the Oval Office.

It’ll be funny if the Democrats actually make an essentially unknown black man their nominee just because he’s opposed to a war that he and they don’t have sense enough to recognize as historically positive for Arab/Muslim democracy and for American business. Wouldn’t that be something like conceding the bankruptcy of their position on this war and going ahead with a choice that says, “Look at us! We stood by our convictions and made a minority our nominee just so we could look ourselves in the eye again.”?

The System won’t let Hillary lose this nomination. Bill won’t allow it.

Harry Reid is on the TV telling Ray Suarez that the War for Iraq is the “biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of this country.”

Where the fuck is this guy’s mind? Is he drunk? I think he’s suffering from some sort of dementia if he cannot understand how to make the transition from using the war as a political tool in the hands of anti-American Democrats like himself to finally admitting that he’s a lying, ineffectual piece of shit who’s never been right about anything.

The incompetence of Reid and the rest of the Eleven Percenters is a danger to the integrity of the Republic.

Is there some alternate dimension where Senator Jim Webb of Virginia is regarded as a great intellect or an expert on the War for Iraq? I’ve been sitting here for 20 minutes waiting for this stuffed shirt to answer a single fucking question with anything like directness and truthfulness —and he just can’t. No credit to anybody associated with the Administration for the substantial progress most recently made in Iraq. No ability to see that our interests there are, in fact, long-term. No straight answers on the Democrats’ poorly-suppressed desire to impeach the President. And about those of his colleagues who voted to name Iran’s Republican Guard a terrorist organization? They didn’t realize what they were doing.

Nobody wants you to be Hillary’s veep, Jim. So sod off.

Good. This is the part where the party instructs the American People on the fact that we are succeeding in Iraq.

The hippie cocksuckers will find out later.

Glenn Reynolds links to a blog entry by a reporter named Bobby Calvan who’s currently in Iraq writing for the McClatchy Newspaper people. In his blog post, Calvan describes a recent experience he had at a checkpoint trying to get back into the Green Zone in Baghdad —but he comes off so incredibly arrogant that he is either the most gifted parodist I’ve read all year or the dumbest libtard stumpfuck to ever write from a war zone:

The American soldier assigned by the U.S. military to oversee this particular checkpoint came over to investigate the problem.

He asked if I had a driver’s license on me. I told him I didn’t have one. He looked incredulous. Why would I need a driver’s license in Baghdad; I wouldn’t be driving, I told him.

He took offense at my response.

Then he looked at the second ID of my companion. It was a badge issued by our newspaper. He said it wouldn’t do. Besides, he asked, what is Knight Ridder?

“I never heard of it,” he said. He probably would have never heard of McClatchy, either. (We use Knight Ridder because it already had a bureau in Baghdad before the chain was bought by the McClatchy Co.)

The funniest part, though, is the comment thread. This poor bastard just gets eviscerated. I was actually in tears I was laughing so hard as the hyperbole and righteous anger just piled up.

UPDATE: Oh, okay. Now Calvan’s cut the end of his post off and is waving the white flag. Too late, hippie: we done got you in the cache. Ha, ha! Go read the comments, anyway. They are a work of art. Like the dude from the Hell’s Angels in Gimme Shelter explaining why he and his boys had to beat the shit out of the people for messing with their bikes at Altamont.

I just watched the replay of last night’s Jon Stewart monologue on General Petraeus —and it was typical Stewart: smug, half-informed, and chickenshit.

The anti-war Leftists and liberals have it in mind that the only thing that approximates ideological coherence for them is their opposition to the War for Iraq. But why do they believe that this opposition, in itself, is worth anything? The great majority of them don’t put any strategic or tactical or political thought into why any particular aspect of the war is wrong or right, so what is the point of their opposition? Simple: if they can take their hatred of George W. Bush —and wrap the ethical argument of pacifism for one and all around that— then they believe they are innoculated against charges of treason and of sympathy for the enemy. After all, they [support the troops] —except when they assist in those same men’s and women’s excoriations before the world as torturers, murderers, mercenaries, and all-around sadists. But, you know, dissent is patriotic and other garbage.

The headlines today are all about the Democrats’ rejection of the draw-down that Petraeus envisions. “Too little, too late” and that kind of mindless prattle. Could such criticism be any more transparently devoid of thought or any more obviously partisan in its motivation and logic? To say that the proposed number of troops in the draw-down is “too little” is to suggest that one knows of a better number. Well, the pacifist would say that the only number is the one that accounts for all, but what anti-war leaders are saying that? The nuts. Shitforbrains like Kucinich. Your average Leftist blogger. These mindless ninnies want us gone from Iraq yesterday. But that isn’t going to happen, is it? So, what number is the right number? What is the logical or strategic basis upon which to insist that a certain number of our troops be withdrawn —no matter what?

One’s personal pacifism isn’t the answer.

One’s partisan motivations shouldn’t be the answer, but what else could it be?

Enjoy the coming year, comrades. Your inexplicably insane and white guilt-ridden support of Barack Obama is bound to rend your party in half. Possibly into thirds. You’re closer to having some principles this time around, if only by accident, but now it’s going to cost you extra. A large number of you are destined to be forever associated with anti-Americanism. The failures of your imagination —Obama, the Clintons, the wretched buffoon Edwards, and maybe even the Gorebot itself— are now all in line to drag your hopes of Executive control down into the dust.

I savor the prospect.

Why are the Democrats universally calling for our expedited withdrawal from Iraq? Because they know that it cannot be done. And, so, they make great hay and show of what is really their unprincipled opposition to the War for Iraq not because they have some grand strategic idea in mind, but because it is the best trick they know. Iraq, to the average anti-war Democrat, is mostly just a fundraising point. It’s a big bag of Abu Ghraib and daily car bombing footage to hang around Bush the Younger’s neck.

One would have expected by now that such dolts as Reid, Pelosi, Levin, Murtha, and Obama would have understood that we aren’t leaving Iraq until the mullahs have left Teheran.

Pay attention, hippies: Iran comes next, if not Syria. We don’t leave until all the family business is settled.

On 6 May 2003, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Nicholas Kristof, in whch this piece of intelligence is shared:

I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

Keep in mind that these words were printed in the most influential newspaper in the United States two months before Joe Wilson’s own, notorious op-ed piece was run in that same paper.

There’s no question that the “person” and the “someone” mentioned by Kristof were none other than Wilson and Plame —feeding Kristof and other reporters intelligence details in a bid for the A-list on the Leftist celebrity cocktail circuit. How did they divulge to Kristof the circumstances of their knowledge? How much leg did they have to show to land an op-ed piece in the Times? Why hasn’t Wilson been made to answer for his lies?

The Moon will save the human race—

Were loonies beaten off their path—

The unthrown stone remains in place—

Through orbitary aftermath.

A blast unguarded —global fire—

Here’s thirty pieces, you fucking liars—

Now go and reckon what you did

When you did nothing but blame the Yid.