TOBY PETZOLD

Peter Wehner unloads on the Eleven Percenters’ Democratic half with respect to the success of the surge in the War for Iraq. The Democrats, he concludes:

have compounded their initial bad judgment about the surge with reckless obstinacy. As ethno-sectarian violence in Iraq rapidly declined, as al Qaeda absorbed tremendous military blows, and as political accommodation and legislative achievements have emerged, Democrats, rather than welcoming the progress, grew agitated. They embraced with religious zeal the belief that the Iraq war was lost; they therefore viewed the success of the surge as a terribly inconvenient development, one they sought to deny to the point that they looked silly and out of touch. Worse, Democrats acted as if they had a vested interest in an American defeat.

Rarely has a political party been so uniformly wrong, in such an obvious way, on such an important matter. And when Americans cast their vote on November 4, they should carefully consider how Barack Obama and the entire Democratic party fought ferociously and relentlessly to undermine a policy that has worked extraordinarily well and may yet prove to be among the most successful military plans in modern times.

Not only are the Democrats defeatists, but they have nominated an unqualified liar for the ostensible reason that he —and not Hillary— will act on his promise to them to end the war. But now that the war has already been won in large measure because of a commitment to victory and to political stability that Obama repeatedly denied our military could ever accomplish, what is he to say? Who knows? No one cares because it isn’t what he has to say that’s so damned mesmerizing, but how he says it. It’s all so Kennedyesque and wonderful and epochal in its significance.

Enjoy telling our troops in Iraq that they have accomplished nothing. Make a mockery of the very idea of leadership by turning this little junket of yours into a Big Media suckfest. Go and give us a speech on peace before a Prussian war memorial, Barry. Who says you have no sense of humor?

Barry, when the only thing that would validate your position on the War for Iraq, insofar as you could be said to have one, is the sudden escalation of violence there, particularly aginst our troops, it would be best for you to come to terms with reality and tell the hippies in your party to shut up and sit down. The war is won —if we choose to leave there on terms that serve our wider strategic interests in the region. If we withdraw in such a way that reawakens the hostile elements in Iraq just because you want to keep to some arbitrary date (a “date certain,” indeed), then you will have squandered what has been won at great cost for mere political purposes. Nobody oughta give a damn what your anti-military/anti-war party says about what Iraq really is and what we’re accomplishing there because all Iraq has ever been to you is a fundraising cause. Lots of Democrats supported the war in the beginning because Iraq had been festering for years. Even Bill Clinton knew Iraq was a danger —and officially endorsed regime change in Iraq as the policy of this country. But you’re to the left of them all. You’re supposedly better than them all because of your “superior” judgement —but that’s garbage and you know it. Right now, because of your lack of judgement and your lack of integrity, you are allowing yourself to be bullied by the anti-war Left for fear of offending them when you know that we have succeeded in Iraq. Your judgement is apparently inferior to those you have long insulted as incompetent. What are you going to be saying to the troops? Are you going to look them in the eye and tell them that they haven’t accomplished anything and that their sacrifices have been for naught? Do you have any optimism to share with a country thats democratic and free market future owes itself to our efforts there? I doubt it. But you’ll be sure to dispense platitudes like the soft soap of your ideology. The Eurofreaks will eat it up and the nauseating propagandists travelling with you will coo and moan at your every utterance, but maybe there’s just enough of us still here in America who won’t buy your lies and are ready to call you on them every time.

So, let’s have it, tough guy. Let’s see you shock and awe the Democratic Party with the news they haven’t bothered to hear —which is that we have succeeded in Iraq and have made a better world possible because of it. But let them down easy, Barry. You’re finally going to have to say something that matters. Don’t flub your lines.

Thanks to Charles Johnson, have a look at what the Village Voice’s Nat Hentoff is saying about the unqualified liar Barack Obama (emphases mine):

But after abandoning his pledge to abide by public financing, this apostle of cleansing the political culture is now going after the high rollers. As the July 3 New York Times reported, “Last week, the Obama campaign collected about $5 million at an event featuring celebrities in Los Angeles. The evening began with a dinner at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion for more than 200 people who had contributed $28,500 per couple, or raised $50,000.” Then there is the current furor among a rising number of Obama contributors with wallets far below the $50,000-a-pop crowd about his change on the “compromise” FISA Amendments Act of 2008 that passed the House and Senate, and has been signed by the grateful president.

The flimflam candidate had assured his faithful enthusiasts that he would filibuster this bill (which will immunize the telecommunications companies that enabled the president to break the law in his once-secret warrantless wiretapping) that turned our privacy rights upside down and out.

Now, by dismissing the scores of lawsuits against these companies from Americans wanting to know whether they’ve been ensnared in this giant government-spun Web, the president and such supporters as Obama will have made it close to impossible to conduct meaningful investigations of the intricate nexus of the ways these telecommunications giants can collect leads to Americans with no connections to terrorism — and could continue to so long as they’re assured by a future lawless administration that national security demands breaking another law.

Barack Hussein Obama is now embarking upon a world tour that will be accompanied by the sort of world-class Big Media attention that only a visit to these shores by the Pope himself would garner. (John McCain, by contrast, has been to Iraq at least seven times that I know of and has received almost no publicity for it.) So it is clear to anyone with any modicum of intellectual honesty that the stampede to get this unqualified liar elected will utterly crush any doubts raised about his political integrity. These next few months —as Hentoff and Johnson and you and I will come to learn— will not be about honest examinations of Obama’s positions and beliefs, but about pushing the anti-American and internationalist Leftist agenda of post-racial this and post-partisan that. There is a danger in what is unfolding right now that is being ignored by the major networks and papers because of the general lack of courage demonstrated by an overwhelmingly white, liberal, and yankee propaganda community that doesn’t want to upset The Narrative.

Well, fuck The Narrative. I got the New Narrative, hippies: no crypto-Muslim black nationalist commies in the White House.

Ever. 

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.

On the Power Line, Paul Mirengoff posts on the following remark that Barack Hussein Obama made in a speech earlier this month in Colorado:

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

What is he talking about? As Mirengoff puts it:

I’m not suggesting that Obama would actually try to establish a domestic security force as powerful as our current military, only that deep-down it appears he wouldl [sic] like to do something of the kind.

I don’t like Barack Hussein Obama. I regard his nomination as a danger to this Republic and I urge all real Americans to reject him utterly.

Oh, and if you plan on buying a gun to protect yourself and yours, I recommend that you do it sooner rather than later. If there’s anything a police state can’t tolerate, it’s an armed citizenry.

The Obama cult announced today that it raised $52 million in June, much to the disappointment of people like me who were hoping that the Messiah’s power to cheat people out of their money had finally begun to dwindle. Now, of course, we know that Obama is the better choice because that’s a lot of money and, if there’s anything this campaign has taught us, it’s that fundraising is the same as competence.

Remember when that was the metric with the first black President? He pretty much wrecked the Democratic Party for the last six years of his administration, but he was mighty handy at getting people to pony up.

Here’s hoping that Bill continues to sit on his hands.

At this point, all I can hope for is that hubris will destroy Obama Soter:

Senator John McCain’s trip to Iraq last March was a low-key affair: With a small retinue of reporters chasing him abroad, the NBC News anchor Brian Williams reported on Mr. McCain’s visit there from New York, including it in the “in other political news” portion of his newscast.

But when Senator Barack Obama heads for Iraq and other places overseas this summer, Mr. Williams is planning to catch up with him in person, as are the other two network evening news anchors, Charles Gibson of ABC and Katie Couric of CBS, who, like Mr. Williams, are far along in discussions to interview Mr. Obama on successive nights.

And while the anchors are jockeying for interviews with Mr. Obama at stops along his route, the regulars on the Obama campaign plane will have new seatmates: star political reporters from the major newspapers and magazines who are flocking to catch Mr. Obama’s first overseas trip since becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee. A “Meet the Press” interview is also being planned.

Mind you, this is the New York Times, so don’t laugh too much at this:

But the coverage also feeds into concerns in Mr. McCain’s campaign, and among Republicans in general, that the news media are imbalanced in their coverage of the candidates, just as aides to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton felt during the primary season.

There are many quick and simple tests to know if you’re dealing with a goddamned idiot. The surest of them is this: if the person arguing with you claims that there’s no pro-Democrat bias in Big Media, then you’ll know that the person you’re arguing with is a goddamned idiot.

By saying that the now-infamous New Yorker magazine cover depicting him and his wife as Muslim terrorists is offensive to Muslims, isn’t Barack Obama basically calling for a jihad against the infidel? Muslim terrorists and their Leftist sympathizers have a difficult time with ironic cartoons, so what he is doing is reckless.

I still don’t understand how people can say Obama is any more a Christian than a Muslim. He obviously had no real connection to Christianity prior to making the purely political choice of joining the ultra-racist Trinity United Church of Christ, so how is it wrong to doubt his word? His word has become worthless on dozens of major issues, so what is the deal here? Because he was baptized? So what? I was baptized, too, but I would never lie to the people around me and claim to be something I am not.

Obama should never have reminded Muslim nutjobs that they should be offended because now they —and the stupid hippies who support this absurd campaign of his— will turn to violence.

Drudge is reporting that the New York Times will soon report that Michelle Obama is going to stay home and bake cookies until Election Day.

Or something like that.

I guess Obama Soter read the recent polls on his wife’s approval ratings. I still don’t know why she’s so unpopular. She’s very pretty and has a great figure, but I guess she’s outspoken enough with some to have a bad rep. I don’t know. But doesn’t the Messiah need her? She’s got to at least have a speech at the convention! WTF?

At The Corner, Byron York links to a New York Times-CBS poll done this past week. This is unbelievable (emphasis mine):

And, toward the end of the poll, this question: “Just as your best guess, about what percentage of all Americans are black: less than 10 percent, between 10 and 20 percent, between 20 and 30 percent, between 30 and 50 percent, or more than 50 percent?”  Virtually no one said less than ten percent.  Twenty-one percent gave the correct answer, which is between 10 and 20 percent.  Thirty-two percent answered between 20 and 30 percent.  Another 32 percent answered between 30 and 50 percent.  And nine percent said more than 50 percent.  Which means that 73 percent of respondents overestimated, many of them by a huge margin, the percentage of the American population that is black.  I think these numbers are consistent with the results of other polls, but they are still amazing.

The ignorance in our country is astounding. No wonder the Democratic Party has nominated someone as unqualified as Barack Obama to be the President: the electorate doesn’t know even the most basic demographic facts about itself.

Christ, save us all!