Constitution Club

The  junior senator from Illinois playing with American foreign policy and negotiating with foreign governments behind the back of the US government. Shame, shame, Anointed One. This isn’t the slimy back rooms of the Chicago political machine anymore, but the big time. Can someone please explain to me how Barack Obama is even the slightest bit qualified to be the next Commander in Chief and President of the United States? I’d love to hear it. Kind of reminds you of Obama’s “I’m against NAFTA” episode where he was secretly reassuring the Canadians that such words were really just campaign rhetoric and not to worry, NAFTA would be safe under an Obama presidency. I can assure you who is not on the ’straight talk express’ and his initials are BHO.

Obama Tried to Stall GI’s Iraq Withdrawal

While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Like every rational creature on God’s green earth French President Nicholas Sarkozy knows that the lunatics running the asylum in Iran are trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

“Iran is taking a major risk in continuing the process to obtain a military nuclear capacity,” Sarkozy told a meeting in Damascus with the leaders of Syria, Turkey and Qatar.

“One day, whatever the Israeli government, we could find one morning that Israel has struck,” Sarkozy added.

“The question is not whether it would be legitimate, whether it would be intelligent. What will we do at that moment? It would be a catastrophe. We must avoid that catastrophe,” Sarkozy told the meeting in comments broadcast on television.

As things pick up speed towards our election and a possible Obama presidency, what does Tehran’s future hold? Will Israel act? Or will they stay put and accept the possibility of Russia helping prop up an Iran being spanked by Obama’s ‘tuffer’ sanctions. If that doesn’t work Michelle’s husband is prepared to give them a good talking to.  I know those guy’s in Iran fear that. I can’t help it, but every time I envision Obama negotiating with them I think of Jerry Mathers saying ‘Golly Wally, I sure hope Dad don’t holler at us!’ I know they are afraid of Barry.

Oh there is absolutely no reason for the Carla Bruni picture.

On the Sarah Palin thread, a fine chap named TZ reminded me that this story should never go untold.  As Joe Lieberman prepares to take the stage in St. Paul he will most assuredly be assailed as “a wolf in sheeps clothing” by those he once stood shoulder to shoulder with.  The reality is that Joe Lieberman’s party left him, not the opposite. 

“Joe Biden wasn’t even on Barack Obama’s short list until August 7, when Russia suddenly invaded the neighboring country of Georgia. That’s the word from key Democrats meeting here in Denver who say the Obama campaign’s need to shore up its foreign policy bona fides helped push the Delaware senator to the top of the pack. ‘We didn’t pick our nominee. Vladimir Putin did,’ is how one Democrat, who professes to be pleased with the Biden choice, put it.”

—John Fund

I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when I read this. Like “Slow Joe” Biden and Barry the boywonder would be any match for Putin. When push comes to shove the whole world knows what kind of appeaser and compromising (can’t we all just get along?) type of president Obama would be. Being a superpower isn’t about winning a popularity contest or about being prom queen yet you would never know it with the constant worrying coming out of the modern day Democratic party about how the rest of the world views the US. The psychological implications and psychosis of such deep rooted fears and insecurities in a modern day political movement is profound, frightening and enlightening all at the same time.

Our friend Eric over at Tygrrrr Express has some thoughts on Pakistan without Pervez Musharaff. Eric has one of the better ‘one man show’ blogs on the web and his Sunday night football game synopsis should never be missed. And sadly, he won’t come blog for us so we have to “go to him”. Conclub has managed to snag some exceptional writers like THB and founder DFV, but Eric could not be tempted to make the jump.

Pakistan is not a situation that can be resolved with hope, change, or ‘Yes, we can.” That eliminates Mr. Obama. It cannot be resolved with tough talk from pretty boys that made their living suing people. Sorry, Mr. Edwards. 35 years of experience and solutions do not count if those solutions are completely fictional. Mrs. Clinton, just sit down.

I repeatedly refer to the republicans as the party of adults precisely because of moments like this.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. If Islamofacist terrorists gain access to these weapons, the entire world could blow up. Do those on the left care? Of course not. Musharraf was an ally of President Bush, so he must be bad.

This is what the left calls reasoning. President Bush is evil. Therefore, his allies must be evil as well. His enemies must be good, which is why condemnation for Musharraf was not extended to Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden.

The heavy-handedness of Russia in Georgia has prompted a meeting of members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  I always find the back room deal making and war of words that are spoken and speculated compelling.

The 26 NATO foreign ministers will hold their emergency meeting at the Alliance headquarters in the Belgian capital on Tuesday where they are set to offer help and support to Tbilisi while sending a strong message to Moscow over its military intervention there.

The extraordinary meeting was called by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who is seeking a comprehensive review of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s relations with Moscow

Naturally, each player brings his own agenda to the table.  This crisis is no different.  Already, the evidence exists that a tight alliance of those who oppose aggressive action by the Soviets. . . er. . . Russians will compete at the same table as those nations who traditionally pay lip service to the methods of totalitarianism. 

Despite the US official’s assurance that “I think you’ll see a NATO more united than you might expect,” other diplomatic sources said the subject of Russia’s role in Georgia had split NATO members.

Britain, Canada, the United States and most eastern European member states are in one camp seeking a tough stance on Russia’s actions, the sources said.

Meanwhile most of western Europe, led by France and Germany and backed by Hungary, Slovenia and others, were more cautious of further hurting ties with Moscow.

And everyone knows that if France or Germany oppose something, then the left believes that “the world opposes it.”  We wouldn’t want to hurt ties with Moscow now, would we?

This is Poland 1939. This is Risk but with real risks. This is Russia once again reaching out to dominate its neighboring states. This is Imperialism in its most naked form. This is about Power and Influence. This is Empire building. This is a warning to NATO and the US. This is a grab to control oil. This is just a taste of things to come.  

Here is some shameless propoganda for you. The Georgian National Anthem:

Today’s headlines from the Georgian War:

UK Warns of Russian Catastrophe

Tory leader David Cameron branded Russia a “dangerous bully” and urged the international community to stand up and condemn its action in Georgia.

He also called for Georgia’s membership of Nato to be “speeded up”.

US knew Georgia trouble was coming, but couldn’t stop it

WASHINGTON — Bush administration officials, worried by what they saw as a series of provocative Russian actions, repeatedly warned Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to avoid giving the Kremlin an excuse to intervene in his country militarily, U.S. officials said Monday.

But in the end, the warnings failed to stop the Georgian president — a Bush favorite — from launching an attack last week that on Monday seemed likely to end not only in his country’s military humiliation but complete occupation by Russian forces.

Russia tightening control in Georgia

Russian forces broadened their crushing offensive against Georgia on Monday, and Georgian officials feared the worst - that the Russian invasion would mean the end of their country’s independence.

Eastern Europe Anxious Over Russian Attacks (they should be)

“We, the leaders of once-captive nations of Eastern Europe, and now EU and NATO members — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland — express a deep concern over the Russian Federation’s actions toward Georgia,” the statement said.

Russia Pushes into Georgia

This has angered Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. “I regret that some of our partners are not helping us, but in fact are trying to impede us,” Mr Putin said. “I am referring to the US transfer, aboard its military transport planes and directly into the conflict zone, of the Georgian military contingent from Iraq.”

Georgia’s leader vows no surrender

“They are menacing the capital,” he added, vowing that the “Georgian people will never surrender freedom and democracy, because democracy is stronger than any of their tanks, any of their bombings, any of their brutal equipment.

“We will go to the end, because we once lost our freedom to Russia.”

And so it goes… war, power, national interest, spheres of influence, control of oil pipelines, East vs. West and the resurgence of a once dead Empire. The Russian-Georgian war has it all. We can only hope that Putin is terrified of old man McCain, because I can tell you that he isn’t afraid of lame duck Bush or “can’t we all all get along” Obama.

 An injured Georgian woman in the town of Gori cries for help. A Russian warplane dropped a bomb on an apartment block in the Georgian town and killed at least five people.

The events in Georgia are certainly interesting to say the least. Putin is a former KGB agent who has long looked to the ‘glorious’ Soviet past as inspiration for his goal to make Russia ‘great’ once again and viewed the collapse of the Soviet Union as the  ‘greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.’
Georgian president Saakashvili has signed a decree declaring a state of war with Russia. Several thousand people have already been killed and over forty thousand are refugees fleeing the fighting and Russian bombardments. The fact that Russia was able to pull off this mobilization and invasion apparently without warning shows that America continues to be controlled by mediocre administration after mediocre administration with each being served by intelligence services that perform poorly at best.

Images of the Russian Invasion of Georgia

The War in Georgia Is a War for the West

Ostensibly, this war is about an unresolved separatist conflict. Yet in reality, it is a war about the independence and the future of Georgia. And above all, it is a war over the kind of Europe our children will live in. Let us be frank: This conflict is about the future of freedom in Europe.

No country of the former Soviet Union has made more progress toward consolidating democracy, eradicating corruption and building an independent foreign policy than Georgia. This is precisely what Russia seeks to crush.

This conflict is therefore about our common trans-Atlantic values of liberty and democracy. It is about the right of small nations to live freely and determine their own future. It is about the great power struggles for influence of the 20th century, versus the path of integration and unity defined by the European Union of the 21st. Georgia has made its choice.

US Suggest Russia Wants Regime Change

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the president of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili “must go,” the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the Security Council.

Khalilzad then looked straight at Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin and asked if Moscow was looking for “regime change.”

“Is the goal of the Russian Federation to change the leadership of Georgia?” he said.

Churkin did not directly address the question but said there are leaders who “become an obstacle.”

US Warns Russia to end Georgian onslaught over fears Moscow will seize crucial oil pipelines

America warned Russia to end its onslaught on Georgia after claims that Moscow intends to seize the whole country to gain control of its crucial oil pipelines.

The West believes the Kremlin is using the conflict to disrupt fuel supplies running from the Caspian Sea to Europe through the small country.

This could make the West even more dependent on Russian oil.

Where’s NATO you ask? They will be meeting some time this week to ‘discuss the situation’. Stupid Europeans.

See also Photo Gallery: Horror in the Caucuses

“When World War II ended, the United States had the only undamaged industrial power in the world. Our military might was at its peak, and we alone had the ultimate weapon, the nuclear weapon, with the unquestioned ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. If we had sought world domination then, who could have opposed us? But the United States followed a different course, one unique in all the history of mankind. We used our power and wealth to rebuild the war-ravished economies of the world, including those of the nations who had been our enemies. May I say, there is absolutely no substance to charges that the United States is guilty of imperialism or attempts to impose its will on other countries, by use of force.”

—Ronald Reagan

Like most everybody, except McCain and our own DFV, Obama was one hundred percent wrong when it came to “the surge”. In many ways, it was the deciding factor (along with the sometimes maligned Gen. Petraeus and his tactics) that drastically curtailed the violence and bloodshed in Iraq and probably “won” the war for the US and our coalition allies.

 It takes a lot to admit when you are wrong. It takes even more to admit you are wrong when you want to be the leader of the free world. It would take a statesman to embrace the tactics, concepts, ideas and policies that would lead to victory on the battlefield once you had adopted the poor policy of attacking the very tactics, concepts, ideas and policies that had brought success all across the board on nearly every level in a time of war.

Change? Yeah, I want change. I want Obama to change.

Barack on Iraq:

January 2007—”And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000
more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don’t know any,
uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to, uh,
privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on
the situation on the ground.”

July 2007—”Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said
today, ‘Well, even in September, we’re going to need more time.’ So we’re
going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the
president’s plan… My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we
will not see a different report eight weeks from now.”

September 2007—”After putting an additional 30,000 troops in… we have
gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable
levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after
all this we’re back where we were 15 months ago… It is a course that will
not succeed.”

January 2008—”I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that
given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops
in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we
would see a reduction in the violence.”

Now: “What I said was even at the time of the debate of the surge, was if
you put 30,000 troops in, of course it’s going to have an impact. There’s
no doubt about that.”

When you dare to attack the postions of THE MESSIAH or point out that, indeed, the Emperor wears no clothes these kinds of things are bound to happen. I’m kind of surprised that the New York Times didn’t just outright ask John McCain to withdraw from the race and endore Barack Obama.

The NYT Rejects and then Lectures John McCain

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES — less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Read the rest of this entry »

The name most synonymous with accurate and trustworthy reporting from the field is Michael Yon.  When he proclaims that we won, I tend to believe him.  And then he writes a follow up to back up his statements:

But I stand by my words, just as I stood by my assertion of February 2005 that Iraq was in a state of civil war, and later understood that Al Qaeda was its proximate cause. Those statements went against the vested interests of both Bush supporters who didn’t want to admit how bad the situation was in Iraq, and war critics, who didn’t want to admit that much of it was Al Qaeda’s fault.

Back then, both sides brought out their dictionaries and muddied the water by arguing semantics: What exactly do you mean by a civil war? What exactly do you mean by Al Qaeda?

So I will be very clear what I mean when I say we have won the war. A counterinsurgency is won when the government’s legitimacy is no longer threatened by the insurgents, the government is able to protect its own people and the people are participating in the government. In Iraq, all three conditions apply.

I love watching the early campaign television spots of Democratic candidates still taking the brave stance of “getting us out of Iraq.”  These self-serving idiots may want to read Michael Yon from time to time to get a grip on the pulse of the war.  If they did, they just might realize that by the time they take office, President Bush will have already drawn down most combat troops.

A single-digit month.

Looking at the coalition fatalities for the first half of July, 2008 shows something remarkable…something not yet noted by any mainstream news agencies or blogs.

At first glance, the stats show that 6 good Americans gave their lives for our country so far this month in Iraq.

But that number of 6 doesn’t tell the tale.

Looking more closely at the numbers, two of our lost soldiers were due to non-hostile work accidents (e.g. one was electrocuted).

But that doesn’t mean that we’ve lost 4 good men to combat this month…you see…two of those lost to combat were killed at the height of the Surge, way back in May of 2007. They are shown in stats for this month because that’s when their bodies were recovered.

This means that two of our grave losses were from last year, not this month’s combat…and two other losses were due to non-hostile causes.

In other words, for the first half of July, 2008, the U.S. has lost two good men to combat in Iraq.

This is not D-Day 1944. Thousands haven’t been lost on a single Normandy beach in minutes.

We’ve lost two in two weeks to enemy combat.

If the second half of July mimmicks the first, we’ll have a single-digit of combat losses in Iraq this month. - Southack from FreeRepublic.com

ICasualties.com has some good charts and figures when it comes to the Iraq War. If this trend continues I eagerly await the Left (and Andre in particular) trotting out their own “mission accomplished” banner as even they are probably bright enough to see that the insurgency is collapsing in Iraq, the Sunni’s have decided they want to have a say and stake in the coming Iraq, and Al-Qaeda has been both rejected by the population and devastated on the battlefield. The Jihadists unexpectedly decided to make their stand in Iraq (with the compliance and cooperation of the threatened Hussein government) and thousands of fleeing Afghani based Al-Qaeda types as well as like minded others from throughout the Islamic world prepared to carry out a guerrilla war on the soon to invading American forces. Since then they have waged a surprisingly bloody, bushwacking type of war but now there is only one combatant left standing in the desert, and his name is Uncle Sam. This war is winding down, and forestalling any panicky and ill timed mass pullout by a naive Obama White House, the true work of creating a new, stable post-war ally will begin in the Middle East.

We hope to have a friendly nation in which to keep an eye on Iran and Syria, protect the areas petroleum fields, provide stability in the region, protect Israel and make the areas despots a wee bit nervous. If the United States wishes to remain a superpower it needs to be willing to make the hard choices at this time to protect it’s interests in the region. The only other option is to throw our hands up and withdraw behind our ocean barriers and bury our head in the sand as a resurgent Russia and empowered China make a play for world influence, control and strategic advantage.

This week, Iranian Islamist Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad tested his new ballistic missile, the Shahab-3—range 1,250 miles. Next door in Iraq, 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” uranium ore, which Saddam intended to weaponize for use in his non-existent WMD program, were removed from Tuwaitha. (That’s enough for more than 100 medium-sized nuclear boomers.) And while al-Qa’ida has been routed in Iraq, there was plenty of evidence this week that jihadis are putting up fierce resistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Seems like this is as good a week as any to pause and ponder, “Who should be our next commander in chief?”

The most important constitutional role of our president is that of commander in chief—which is why every Patriot, every American, every human on the planet, should be deeply concerned about the prospect of a “President Obama.”

-Mark Alexander, Editor in Chief of the Patriot Post

“Obama’s seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA,
campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What’s
left? Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon.”

—Charles Krauthammer 

“Obama’s constant policy adjustments tend to be admired for their alleged
deftness rather than condemned for their obvious cynicism, while his liberal
primary positions are presumed to be sincere—the shifts being carried out
just to trick the foolish old people who wouldn’t vote for such an obvious
liberal.”

—Tony Blankley

Okay, so in the last week Barack Obama has changed his support for FISA telecom immunity, NAFTA renegotiation, handgun bans, and his pledge to take public campaign financing.  Now these aren’t necessarily little things like pandering to religious conservatives by talking about originalist judges.  These are major policy shifts that Obama used to seize the left and win the primaries with.  At this point it is clear that Obama could advocate immediate strikes on Iran and drilling of ANWR and the left would applaud and say, “I told you that’s what needed to be done!  That is leadership!” 

So just where is Obama on the current war?  The conservatives here have said repeatedly that when the Dems win the White House, the reality of the office will show just how foolish their calls for immediate withdrawl were.  The Obama team understands this and have scheduled their man to fly to Iraq very soon.  These events are not lost on McCain blogger Michael Goldfarb (formerly of the Weekly Standard). 

Playing to the Democrartic party’s antiwar base, Obama pledged to withdraw troops regardless of the facts on the ground. He opposed the surge, and even warned that it would make the violence worse. And as progress became apparent, he stubbornly refused to recognize the gains our troops were making.

Yet now that Obama has indicated he will take any position needed to seize the center, it looks like Iraq will be his next flip-flop:

So what issue will he shift on next? After looking at the numbers from yesterday’s Quinnipiac battleground polls, we’re betting Iraq. It turns out that Americans as a whole aren’t nearly so eager for surrender as the left-wing of the Democratic party, and Obama isn’t much for staking out unpopular positions.

I don’t really find the new positions Obama has staked out or will stake out soon, objectionable.  I just find myself repulsed by the way the media and his apologists haven’t the slightest bit of courage to call him on them (except for Glen Greenwald).  Change you can believe in, my ass.

I often rail about the hate-mongers on the left who base their policy support and opposition only on whether or not Bush is for or against it.  Such hacks show no propensity to think outside of what the nutroot blogs tell them to think.  So when Glenn Greenwald has a minor spat with Keith Olbermann over FISA, I am comforted by the fact that the savy Greenwald is at least a man of principle. 

This episode doesn’t really originate with either Greenwald nor Olbermann.  It actually centers around yet another Barack Obama flip-flop (shocker!).  Apprently, after vehement opposition last year, Obama is now planning to vote for an update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  The update he supports will give telecoms immunity from prosecution if they cooperate with the government’s Terrorist Surveillance Program.  Greenwald wrongly opposes such immunity and believes that lawsuits are an acceptable way to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of citiznes.  Olbermann also opposed such immunity going so far as to rant against it in one of his “Special Comments” last January.  Greenwald details the rest:

In a 10-minute “Special Comment,” the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to “retroactively immunize corporate criminals,” and said that telecom immnity is “an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush's] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email.”

Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a “shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism — the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government.” Noting the numerous telecom lobbyists connected to the Bush administration.

But as Greenwald notes, that was “five whole months ago.”

Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing — and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists — everything has changed.

 Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama’s support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn’t a syllable uttered about “immunizing corporate criminals” or “textbook examples of Fascism” or the Third Reich. There wasn’t a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama’s bravery and strength — as evidenced by his “standing up to the left” in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise:

Make no mistake about it; Olbermann, Alter and Obama are snakes.  Obama will say or do anything to get elected.  Alter is perfectly content to whore himself and his magazine out to the left and Olbermann doesn’t have a shred of credibility with his unhinged, hate-filled tirades against George Bush (You SIR!).  But on this issue, they are correct.  Greenwald, on the other hand, is a fringe left constitutionalist who recently wrote a book about manipulative electoral tactics used by the GOP ignoring the stellar voting patterns of Democrats. 

But on this issue, at least he is consistent.  I encourage you to pick through the links and the replies by Olbermann on DailyKos.  He only makes more of an ass of himself as he tries to defend his 180 degree turn. 

When you look at the number of factors in play at this point in history, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that air strikes are imminent.  The real question now is, to what extent will U.S. airpower be involved?  The key factors are as follows:

• Iran will not negotiate.  They have made it perfectly clear that there is nothing the international community can do to get them to cease the enrichment of uranium. 
• The U.N. is utterly impotent to do anything about Iran.  Economic sanctions are impossible to get through Russia and China.  Nuclear inspectors don’t care.  The Iranian economy, while severely recessed, continues to plug along. 
• Exacerbating the point, Israel no longer believes that sanctions against Iran will work anyway.
• Israel has used some very high level diplomats to underscore the point that airstrikes are on the table.  Included in that list are Ambassador to the United States, Sallai Merador, and Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz. 
• George Bush has insisted that “all options are on the table.  He has even hinted that there is a great deal of urgency in the voices of the Israelis.
• The impending POTUS, Barack Obama, has repeatedly said he is willing to negotiate with Iran “without precondition.”  Israel is understandably concerned that the next leader of their most trusted ally has no more foreign policy sense than a freshman in college.
• Russia has been selling anti-aircraft technology to Iran.  This technology is expected to be operational sometime around years end. 
• Nicholas Sarkozy was well received today in the Knesset becoming the first French President to visit Israel in 12 years.  His money quote; “I ask you to trust us because we want to help you… France is ready to provide its guarantee, ready to mobilise its diplomatic service, its resources, its soldiers. You can trust France.”
• In March, Dick Cheney took a little trip to the Middle East.  His last stop?  Turkey.  Some speculate that he need to shore up possible support for the continued use of air bases in Turkey.   
• And the smoking gun is what has taken place earlier this month in the Mediterranean Sea.  Israel performed a not-so-secret exercise with over 100 aircraft near Greece.  The range of their exercise was within the same range as Iran.  By letting the Western media in on their maneuvers, they have now put the world on notice that they will never stand idly by while those who promise their destruction continue to develop the means to carry out said destruction.  Appeasement is not an option for Israel.  Their very survival may depend on the success of this mission and the willingness of the United States to provide support for it.  Time has run out for the fanatical nuclear ambitions of Iran.

This video from CBS News gives a good look at the Israeli maneuvers in the Mediterranean.

We can only hope.

Mr. Zebari’s Message: Iraq’s Foreign Minister has a chat with Barack Obama

The foreign minister said “my message” to Mr. Obama “was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress.” He said he was reassured by the candidate’s response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that “if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field.” Certainly, it makes sense to consult with those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen carefully to what they are saying.

Israel Developing Consensus In Favor Of Iran Strike -Spiegel

The Israeli government no longer believes sanctions can stop Iran from building nuclear weapons and a broad consensus in favor of a military strike against Tehran’s nuclear facilities - without the U.S., if necessary - is beginning to take shape, according to an article in Spiegel Online. The report cites recent comments by Israeli officials, including comments by deputy prime minister Shaul Mofaz, which were widely dismissed, by the U.S. and others, as electioneering.

“In truth, however, there is now a consensus within the Israeli government that an air strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities has become unavoidable,” Spiegel Online writes.

I think a President Obama destabilizes the Middle East and increased the risk of major conflict in the region. Iran, Syria and their host of proxy armies from Hezbollah to Hamas to Islamic jihad will be emboldened and a more isolated Israel will be more willing to take matters into their own hands if they don’t feel they have “big brother” Uncle Sam ready to take care of things for them. Despite his protestations, Obama is no friend of Israel and appears to be Carter like overly friendly with its sworn enemies who have vowed to finish what Hitler started. We will see increased instability, emboldened terrorist and rogue regimes, a nuclear Iran and far higher gas prices amidst a very jittery world market come next spring if we are not careful.

But then again, the masses cry for change. Be careful what you wish for. He will do it. Yes he can.

More news you won’t here Obama or the Democrats bragging about. This is a global war with many fronts and different types of battlefields. Americans tend to be spoiled and demand quick solutions to complicated problems, but this one will be a generational fight and we must be prepared to engage in it for decades to come.

Asian Gains Seen in Terror Fight

Three years after the region’s last major strike — the attacks on three restaurants in Bali that killed three suicide bombers and 19 other people — American and Asian intelligence analysts say financial and logistical support from Al Qaeda to other groups in the region has long dried up, and the most lethal are scrambling for survival. 

UPDATE: Link has been fixed.

Over at the ‘No Menage-a-trois for Obama’ thread, Dave mentioned the power of the Vice Presidency and how Hillary would handle that power.  I echoed that statement with a short analysis of my own to which our friend PG had this to say:

I have a request of you and E - Prove what you are saying. Wes you never do, E sometimes does, though with the Cheney smack I think he is trouble. He did not remake anything. Dave and E both are invited to explain to me how actually DOING something changed the vice presidency, and further how it was negative. Not Cheney’s actions, that is the person, but how having a V.P. who does something is de facto negative. Can you tell me how Cheney’s influence over the office was different than say LBJ’s, Nixon’s and Roosevelt’s?

Why in the world were you watching Frontline E? No, never mind, I understand, it has been too clear of late. The idea that a political party has no spine is too much to handle. Blame it on the guy who did what he said he was going to do.

I’m not sure of what that last part meant but I thought I might further expand on the former point.  On comments I don’t always feel the need for exhaustive links to prove what I am saying.  Generally, what I say is quite lucid and historically accurate.  Everything you mention about the Vice Presidency is true.  But Dick Cheney has been instrumental in the formulation of policy as the Veep.  His power has been largely unbridled as the behind-the-scenes actor for the President.  He had a chief of Staff (Libby) that was also his chief foreign policy advisor and an assistant to the President.  This triumvirate of positions are ones that I am sure Dan Quayle had not yet created.  Treating terrorists as enemy combatants was his plan.  He helped carve out the economic policy for the President and demanded the resignation of Paul O’Neill when he voiced objections.  Budget directors would seek counsel with Cheney, not the President, to bounce ideas off on issues of defense and taxes.  Cheney has been a Rumsfeld protege and may have been the reason Bush stood idly by in 04 and 05 while Iraq sank into the abyss of sectarian war.  I assumed all of this was fairly standard knowledge among the conservatives here.  I was unaware that I needed to link these things for PG. 
 
I have no beef with Dick Cheney.  I think he has been quite effective in his role.   But if one wants to argue that expanding the power of the Federal government by granting unconstitutional authority to the Veep is a great thing, I will beg to differ.  While I may think Dick Cheney is okay, I will not be happy when a Vice President Clinton exercises such power.  I will however concede that the Vice President should not be left in the dark the way Truman was.

As for Frontline, from time to time there are episodes that catch my interest.  In the case of this particular documentary, much of what we as conservatives have said (especially the criticisms we had) about the war was echoed.  Nothing very controversial although they made the colossal mistake of ending the show before the results of the surge. 

PG sometimes throws those softballs out there for me to hit out of the park.  He should know better since I destroy both conservative and liberal on here that dares to challenge me.

Last Sunday, on a thread devoted to the way Chris Matthews grilled a historically ignorant right-wing talk show host, Andre made some embarrassing assertions of his own.  In the comment section, Andre made this point in relation to Obama’s childish take on foreign policy:

Ok, in case they read our humble blog… “Appeasement” means giving up something to your enemies for temporary peace. “Diplomacy” means talking to them, without giving in. What do you think the traitor Dems will give up, Dave?

Annoyed with the simpleminded leftist blather, and probably in a piss poor mood, I fired back at Andre with two comments:

“What the f*** does Andre think diplomats do? They give in dummy! Diplomacy means you bend to the will of others in exchange for getting something in return.

So just what should we bend to the will of Iran for? Tell me Andre you frickin genius! What should we give to Iran that will make the world more peaceful? What should we bend to Hamas for in order to get something? I anxiously await your enlightened answer.”

And by the way Andre, your take on Reagans diplomacy is as big of a joke as the guy Matthews is grilling. Equivocating the Soviets with Iran or Iraq or Hamas shows how immature and devoid of integrity your worldview really is. Let me fill you in here. . . talking to the Soviets, a country that shared the world power structure with the U.S. is different than talking to those pissant fanaticals. Get it?

As if on cue, or spurred on by my wisdom, Charles Krauthammer then kicks out this editorial five days later.  His point mirrors my own in that Obama and Andre/Wes are basically children in a grown ups world.  In reference to Obama’s plan to meet with the worlds totalitarians and gangsters, Krauthammers says this:

After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

And what does Krauthammer say about the nature of diplomacy?  He simply parrots a refined version of my annoyed comment:

As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.

What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran’s nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?

On the topic of comparing diplomacy with Iran with that of the Soviets, Krauthammer is clear:

Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations — and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle — Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others “don’t pose a serious threat to us.” (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.)

The entire parallel Conclub-thread-turned-editorial comes full circle when Krauthammer exposes Obama’s utter lack of historical knowledge.  **Coincidentally, when Matthews and Andre declared appeasement to be “giving” something to your enemies, they show their own unrefined knowledge of the Treaty of Versailles and the parameters Hitler broke that went unenforced.** 

Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he’s seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?

During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.

Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin — and then near fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?

Needless to say, there was never a reply to my comments.  Aside from Dave, PG, and CK (Charles Krauthammer) piling on, liberal contributors and readers would rather not be bothered with facts that expose both their own and their candidates inept and dangerous foreign policy objectives.  They would rather bitch about what a “disaster” President Bush’s foreign policy is. 

h/t to Instapundit.

The Beast just started working for a State Department organ three weeks ago and he got a good chuckle over this post on The Diplomad Blog:

 Have a few minutes to spare? Go to “Google,” type in the phrase “highly educated voters,” hit “Search News.” Go ahead. We’ll wait . . . OK, what do you get? All sorts of stories about Obama voters, and how he attracts the “highly educated.” You will get the same from the pundits on network and cable news: lots of blather about how Obama appeals to “highly educated” Americans. 

  That, of course, is just more MSM “spin doctor” nonsense and we conservatives let them get away with it. We heard the same song when John “Xmas in Cambodia” Kerry ran for President, to wit, the “highly educated” went for Kerry the ignorant ones went for Bush. Every time you hear that phrase, “highly educated” substitute the phrase “attended a lame liberal college or university.” That’s what we are really talking about. Given the state of higher education in the world, including in our own beloved Republic, spending four years in a typical “liberal arts” institution generally qualifies you for . . . uh . . . well, not much, except, of course, to boast that you are “highly educated.” And that just don’t mean a whole hill of beans today. Let me explain.

The Diplomad had to choose some recent “highly educated” college grads for an intern-type position, but their resumes were all the same. Literally. So he devised a test.

 I stole a friend’s idea and devised “The World War II Test.” I invited the applicants for interviews. These PMI wannabes came off as slick and somewhat rude. I noted something among my subjects, a sense of entitlement, they all, to varying degrees, emitted a message along the lines of “Why are you bothering me with this silly interview? I am obviously brilliant. I have a degree from Columbia. I am not going to spend my whole life as you have in this stupid bureaucracy. I just need this to add to my resume. I am in a hurry.” I hit them with the test, which consisted of about dozen questions about WWII and its aftermath. I recall a few,

Can you tell me how US troops got into Europe in the first place? When was WWII? (I would accept a variety of answers as long as the applicant could defend the dates as the true start and end of WWII.) What nations comprised the principal Allied and Axis powers? Who was Neville Chamberlain? What he did he do at Munich and with whom? Who was Mussolini? What did he do to Ethiopia? Who was Stalin? Who was Hirohito? What was D-Day? What President ordered the dropping of the atomic bombs and why? Can you name a result of the Conference at Yalta? What was the  What was the Berlin Airlift?

Of the 14 or 15 applicants I interviewed, only one got them all right — the only male in the crowd, by the way. None, zero, zip of the rest got even ONE right. Not a single one. A very irritated applicant asked me, “Do we really need to know this old stuff?” I noted that we worked with NATO and Europe, hence, it was important to know the background that led to the creation of NATO and the then just-concluded Cold War. She stared at me and said, “What does World War II have to do with NATO, the Cold War and Europe?” I promptly offered the job to the male — oh, the cries from “Human Resources” — who turned it down for a more lucrative one in the private sector. In the best Foreign Service tradition, I stalled hiring anybody else, let my two-year assignment run out, and left my poor successor to get stuck with one of the clueless ones.

The Beast is going to try that test on some of the twenty-somethings he works with tonight and see what they come with. Read the rest of the piece and don’t miss the fantastic comments section - where they skewer the postmodernist “Skills vs Raw Data” apologists.

Is it really a surprise that this article from the NYT exposes what many of us has known for a while. The media are lazy and easily manipulated much to the detriment of the American people, many of which believe everything they see on TV when it looks official. When things are not going as planned…lie and fearmonger.

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants.

There should have been disclosure of whom the “analysts” were financially linked to and had a vested interest in seeing conduct profitable business, even at the expense of American lives.

Disgraceful, but this whole war has been a disgrace based on lies from the beginning.

UPDATE upon reading my blathering rant again: My point is about the news media playing dumb about institutionalized propaganda, not so much the propaganda itself. The propaganda was obvious.

DEMOCRAT
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
You push for higher taxes so the government can provide cows for everyone.

REPUBLICAN
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?

SOCIALIST
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you don’t know where they are.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION
You have all the cows in Afghanistan , which are two.
You don’t milk them because you cannot touch any creature’s private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but u se the money to buy weapons.

IRAQI CORPORATION
You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.

POLISH CORPORATION
You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

BELGIAN CORPORATION
You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he’s French, other times he’s Flemish.
The Flemish cow won’t share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow’s milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.

FLORIDA CORPORATION
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can’t figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Most are illegal.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.

Don’t flame me for being non-PC…it’s a joke email that showed up in my “in” box. I thought it worthy of posting for a laugh.

This should have been titled: Has Hillary Grown a Pair? but I usually try to avoid such crudeness in titles.

On the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., tells “Good Morning America” she would “obliterate” Iran if they attacked Israel. (AP/ABC News) 

She’s talking tough, after all she dodged sniper fire in Bosnia to help bring peace to the region and… uh, never mind. It’s always send the Right into fits of giggles when Liberals talk tough, but at least she’s giving lip service to the reality that there are ‘bad guys’ out there. Obama doesn’t even pretend to have a grasp of world events and the War on Terror. He has offered little more than to have tea and cookies, Jimmy Carter style, with the thugs, despots and crazies of the world. No other candidate will embolden and invigorate the enemies of the United States than to a president who is indebted to the pacifistic, peacnik agenda of the fringe Left.

It’s looking like Hillary will attempt to ‘run to the right’ of McCain in the general as he attempts to ‘run to the center’ and outflank Hillary for the moderate votes. That would certainly be interesting to watch as well.

Clinton on Iran Attack: “Obliterate Them”

In an ad that began airing in Pennsylvania Monday morning, Clinton implies she is tougher than Obama.

“Who do you think has what it takes?” the narrator asks in an ad depicting historical images of crises that presidents have had to deal with: Osama bin Laden, headlines about the stock market crash of 1929, long gas lines from the 1970s oil-shocks, images of the Cold War, Hurricane Katrina and soldiers. It features the first image of Osama bin Laden to be used in a TV ad this political season.

A number of progressives have mentioned to me how fantastically fashionable European governments are. This post is fascinating on so many levels…

Several pieces today tie together to forma disturbing mosaic. The first two are the growing threat of radical Islam in Great Britain and the penetration of the structures of several elite universities there.

The second is the new report by the NEFA Foundation on the Muslim Brotherhood structure in Belgium.

The most disturbing to me is a report that Britain’s Home Secretary Jaqui Smith believes the police are being overwhelmed by the growing threat of radical Islam in Britain.

“There are 2,000 individuals who are being monitored. There are 200 networks involved and 30 active plots,” she said.

So the UK liberal Labour Party see this growing threat in spite of multiculturalism and without the fear mongering that said enlightened cultural relativity prevents? Wow! Not only does the oh so trendy socialist Home Secretary realize there is a threat, she has some suggestions on how to handle it…

And she warned the menace of Islamic fanatics is mounting so fast that police will be unable to cope within a year—unless they are given new powers to lock up terror suspects for longer.

At present cops can hold suspects for up to 28 days, but the Home Office wants that increased to 42 days.

“We can’t wait for an attack to succeed and then rush in new powers,” said Mrs Smith. “We have got to stay ahead.”

“Because we now understand the scale of what is being plotted, the police have to step in earlier—which means they need more time to put evidence together.”

So like tell me what Bush is doing again? Hey I know it is their delusion - BDS - so it is not nice to demand logic, but please explain it to me!

A must read if you want to look beyond the bumper sticker sloganeering and political posturing that obscures the debate about the Iraq War.

Petraeus On The ‘Fragile And Reversible’ Situation In Iraq

…Still, security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional US forces to Iraq.

A number of factors have contributed to the progress that has been made. First, of course, has been the impact of increased numbers of Coalition and Iraqi Forces. You are well aware of the U.S. surge. Less recognized is that Iraq has also conducted a surge, adding well over 100,000 additional soldiers and police to the ranks of its security forces in 2007 and slowly increasing its capability to deploy and employ these forces…

Multi-National Force-Iraq: Charts to Accompany the Testimony of Gen David H. Petraeus

Some very interesting information here, and some good indications that serious progress is (finally) being made. It’s been a hard, long slog, but for the US to actually be able to leave Iraq they must have in place a stable political situation, dependable army and security infrastructure, and a minimum of extremist, insurgent and terrorist activity. Otherwise, you have chaos, anarchy and a failed state. Whether or not someone supported the initial invasion is irrelevant. The rallying point should be for all viewpoints is that a stable, healthy and secure Iraq is vital for not only the interests of the United States but for the Iraqi’s and the region as a whole. Taliban Afghanistan taught us what a failed state can lead too. We have to learn from those lessons and make sure that it does not happen again in a nation far more valuable, strategic and important than Afghanistan ever was.

McCain, Clinton and Obama set to question Petraeus and Crocker

McCain brings another asset into the hearing in the form of Senator Lindsey Graham. As his chief surrogate, Graham is Robin to McCain’s Batman. No one else is more in sync with the Arizona senator on Iraq. During the hearing, Graham can easily use his time during questioning to elaborate a McCain point or address another point McCain may have left out.

McCain also has Sen. Joe Lieberman to carry his torch in the Armed Services hearing. He’s an independent who votes with the Democrats on virtually every issue but the Iraq war.

Together they turn Washington in to Gotham City.  McCain and Graham are the Caped Crusaders, with Lieberman filling in as Commissioner Gordon — he may not be a full-fledged Republican crime fighter, but he’s certainly a strong supporter of the cause.

Gen. Petraeus has done an absolutely outstanding job in Iraq and all sides in the Iraq debate should stop to give him due thanks as he reports back to Washington. No one, including the most ardent of Iraq hawks, believed that the fairly small size of the surge, and the new tactics wielded with it, would have such an amazing turn around on ground in Iraq as they have. McCain, DFV, and many of us have bewailed the fact that this was not implemented two years ago. If one man has been the most dead on correct on this issue it has been Sen. McCain. You can feel free to disagree with him on whatever you want to but there is no denying the fact that if the ‘McCain surge’ had been implemented two years ago with Petraeus at its head, we probably wouldn’t be talking about ‘the War’ in anything besides a historical context.

It was Shrillary herself who said that it would take a ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ to believe that the surge would be successful and took a few cheap shots at the General hoping to score a few political points. The last time the general was ‘in town’ Hillary called effectively called him a liar and MoveOn.org called him a traitor. That says everything you need to know about the mettle and mentality of those who happily dwell in the deepest, darkest and slimiest parts of the political landscape. I eagerly await her apology tomorrow as well as from others sitting on the various committees. If she had the slightest shred of integrity that woud be the first thing she would offer when she finally had the opportunity to address the General. Unfortunately, I probably await in vain.