On August 1, 2007, Obama posted on his site a long list of what he would do as President. Part of that included:
…..This brings me to the fourth step in my strategy: I will make clear that the days of compromising our values are over.
Major General Paul Eaton had a long and distinguished career serving this country. It included training the Iraqi Army. After Abu Ghraib, his senior Iraqi advisor came into his office and said: “You have no idea how this will play out on the streets of Baghdad and the rest of the Arab world. How can this be?” This was not the America he had looked up to.
As the counter-insurgency manual reminds us, we cannot win a war unless we maintain the high ground and keep the people on our side. But because the Administration decided to take the low road, our troops have more enemies. Because the Administration cast aside international norms that reflect American values, we are less able to promote our values. When I am President, America will reject torture without exception. America is the country that stood against that kind of behavior, and we will do so again.
Waterboarding’s out, everything else is still subject to interpretation.
I also will reject a legal framework that does not work. There has been only one conviction at Guantanamo. It was for a guilty plea on material support for terrorism. The sentence was 9 months. There has not been one conviction of a terrorist act. I have faith in America’s courts, and I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.
Obama now supports indefinite detentions, a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions by Obama’s definition. However, as many have argued before, detaining terrorists is not dealt with in the Geneva Conventions in the first place. So, I’m all for Obama’s decision. However, I am curious as to how the rabid left wing will respond. As noted in the link in this paragraph, several considered Bush a war criminal for detaining terrorists indefinitely. I now expect them to start labeling Obama as such OR acknowledge how hypocritical they are. I’m not holding my breath for either response.
This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.
That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
The wiretapping will continue as it was in the past. I fully expect Russ Feingold to either apologize to Bush, condemn Obama, or publicly admit how hypocritical he is.
The pictures of torture will not be made public either. I fully expected people who had complained for eight years about the cloke of secrecy of the Bush administration to go nuts, but this is what they are saying so far:
So, they trash Bush for eight years over not being transparent enough, then when Obama does it, it shows “he is open to changing his mind”.
How long will it take before these people finally admit that what they elected is no different than what they hated for eight years?
- We’re still in Iraq and not going anywhere soon.
- We’re still in Afghanistan and no closer to resolving it.
- We’re still wiretapping whoever The White House sees fit.
- We’ve still got detainees in Gitmo.
- We’re still detaining prisoners indefinitely with no guarantee of a court appearance.
- The White House is obviously withholding “criminal” activity from the public.
- Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose.
- North Korea is building bigger missiles.
- Terrorists are sixty miles from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
I would expect Nancy Pelosi to defend all of Obama’s flip-flops and abandonded campaign promises, but she’s got her own issues to deal with right now. It appears that she was in on the wiretapping, the torture, and about everything else she has railed against for eight years. However, as with Obama, the left blogosphere that railed rabidly against any Republican that was sitting in the same country as the issues occurring are now contorting themselves into pretzels trying to defend Pelosi as well:
So, regardless of Nancy saying it was criminal in 2003, the fact she lied about whether she was aware of what was going on is “yawn“. And, although Russ Feingold sought to censure Bush over illegal wiretapping, he has been noticeably silent on Nancy Pelosi’s involvement in them. In fact, the entire issue has suddenly become moot since it’s obvious that Nancy was right smack in the thick of it, and Obama plans to continue doing it. Where is Feingold now?
The hypocrisy to protect Obama at this point is sickening. However, I don’t think people like Feingold and the rabid left can hold out much longer. Heck, I’m saving irresponsible spending, economic policies, and a whole bunch of other issues for later.
That’s according to Rasmussen:
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of U.S. voters nationwide favor a military response to eliminate North Korea’s missile launching capability. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 15% of voters oppose a military response while 28% are not sure.
Now to me, this is where it gets real fun:
Just three percent (3%) of voters view North Korea as an ally while 46% say it’s an enemy. Surprisingly, the latter number is down 14 points from a survey in mid-February despite North Korea’s belligerent talk before the missile launch.
Forty-four percent (44%) now say North Korea is somewhere between an ally and an enemy, while eight percent (8%) are not sure.
54% of these people don’t know that North Korea has threatened the United States repeatedly in the last decade, arms terrorist groups via rogue governments, and supplies enemies of the United States with arms.
And, it gets even better:
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Republicans consider North Korea an enemy of the United States. That view is shared by 50% of unaffiliateds and 28% of Democrats. Most Democrats (57%) place North Korea somewhere between ally and enemy.
72% of the Democrats responding have absolutely no clue whatsoever what North Korea is doing. North Korea is not somewere between an ally and enemy. They are flat-out an enemy at this time. They are doing what they can do develope missiles to reach the United States. They are doing everything they can to market their military weapons so countries can use them against the United States. There is no grey area here. Somehow, 72% of these Democrats polled either have no clue or don’t care. But, out of that number of people who are so clueless they don’t know who their enemies are, 57% think we should attack them for launching that rocket.
Regardless of the fact North Korea has done it before.
Regardless of the fact it was supposed to be a peaceful launch of a satellite.
Regardless of the fact it posed no threat to the United States.
Regardless of the fact it fell harmlessly into the Pacific Ocean.
Regardless of all that, a huge number of people who do not consider North Korea an enemy were ready to attack them for doing what China, India, France, Russia, and many other countries have done, launch a satellite.
I am going to bet CNN was right a year and a half ago, 43% of expected voters just don’t think national security’s that important. Domestic issues are much more so. If a person truly feels that way, then being totally clueless about what happens in North Korea makes sense and therefore attacking North Korea for launching a satellite makes a lot more sense than attacking Iraq over possible WMD’s did in 2003.
Either way, Obama didn’t attack North Korea. He instead demanded North Korea’s strongest allies, who are most likely supplying North Korea with the supplies to build these rockets, do something about North Korea. They refused.
Given the two options of totally clueless people thinking we should have attacked North Korea for launching a satellite, or, the totally clueless POTUS demanding North Korea’s strongest allies and suppliers spank North Korea, I guess, I have to, go along with the totally clueless POTUS on this one. Only so long as he does not FUBAR our missile defense or military presence near North Korea. When it comes to missiles, the only way Obama is going to get what he wants is to have a state of the art missile defense shield whether Russia likes it or not. Until he has that technology and capability, one more satellite launch by North Korea and they could have the possibility of pointing their rockets directly at Hollywood. Then, expect Iran to have the same capability pointing at Israel. On and on and on it will go as North Korea exports their #1 commodity to any despot willing to pay cash.
The only way you’ll eliminate the arms race is to build a defense system that neutralizes missiles. Wishful thinking and “setting an example” won’t do it.
Attacking North Korea for launching a “satellite” would have been a diplomatic fubar beyond anything Bush ever imagined. Plus, it would have created a political nightmare for Obama who claimed rather adamantly that Iraq was a mistake since they posed no harm to the US.
Besides, there are much more discreet ways of getting your message accross.
However:
In a meeting at the White House on Thursday evening, Obama also told lawmakers that he plans to keep a range of 35,000 to 50,000 support troops on the ground in Iraq after combat troops are out, the officials said.
Now, his plan is they will be there for training and Iraqi support missions only.
Now, the reality is he may not consider it combat, but I bet those opposing us being there will.
We’re going to be in a position where our troops will just be sitting ducks for every terrorist group in the Middle East.
Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?”
Fast forward to 2009. The nation is still at war (two wars, in fact), and now also faces the prospect of a severe recession and federal budget deficits topping $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. With Barack Obama’s inauguration estimated to cost $45 million (not counting the millions more that government will have to pay for security), is the Associated Press once again tsk-tsking the high dollar cost?
Nope. “For inaugural balls, go for glitz, forget economy,” a Tuesday AP headline advised. The article by reporter Laurie Kellman argued for extravagance…….
According to the AP four years ago, things were so bad, Bush should feel guilty about blowing $46 million on his inauguration. Now, AP argues that Obama should have the most expensive inauguration ever. And, he’s obliging, with the cost somewhere around $160 million at this point.
Others took even further. Late 2004 also saw the awful tsunami that killed thousands of people. Some people took the opportunity to slam Bush’s inauguration in relation to that event as well:
So maybe we shouldn’t stand for it.
So I’ll open this for discussion:
- Should we try to start a groundswell (dare I say tsunami?) of popular support for scaling down the parties and sending the money to those in dire need?
- How can this be discussed and advocated free of partisan positions as something that active workers–those who really do get things done–from both Left and Right could accomplish together?
- Indeed, can it be done?
I can’t find where Paul Velleman went after Left2Right shut down, but I don’t see anything via Google where he’s shaming Obama over his inauguration.
Facts are that the economy is worse, we’re still in wars, and there are horrific humanitarian situations occurring all over the world. So, one has to ponder why AP and many others felt so compelled to shame Bush in 2005 and extol extravagance for Obama in 2009.
It’s called bias. It’s not so much of an issue to me that it exists, as it pretty much always has, but how overt and blatant it has become. Do people really feel comfortable with a one-sided media telling them what is news?
Sheez, people kept desperately trying to make Bush and Cheney into an incarnation of Big Brother. Why can’t they see the obvious? If “news” is so willing to re-write history based on their political views, you’ve got Big Brother
But, for what it’s worth, I supported Bush’s bash in 2005, and I’m all for Obama’s bash in 2009. It’s a feel-good event for the entire country whether you supported Obama or not. And, we need that as much now as we did in 2005.
13
Jan
Here we go. The members of the US Senate class of 2008 haven’t even been fully seated and we are already sepculating on 2010. CNN has already decided the Republicans are in trouble in 2010 simply because, get this, they had trouble in 2006 and 2008. Logical huh? Wikipedia references something called the Cook Political Report as the official word on what is going to happen in 2010. Their breakdown has it looking something like this:
| DEMOCRATS | 17 HELD SEATS | ||||||
| SOLID D (11) | LIKELY D (5) | LEAN D (1) | TOSS UP (0) | LEAN R (0) | LIKELY R (0) | SOLID R (0) |
| Lincoln (AR) | Boxer (CA) | Bennet (CO) | ||||
| Dodd (CT) | Reid (NV) | |||||
| Kaufman (DE) | Dorgan (ND) | |||||
| Inouye* (HI) | Murray (WA) | |||||
| IL (Obama) | Feingold (WI) | |||||
| Bayh (IN) | ||||||
| Mikulski (MD) | ||||||
| Schumer (NY-A) | ||||||
| NY-B (Clinton) | ||||||
| Wyden (OR) | ||||||
| Leahy (VT) | ||||||
| REPUBLICANS | 20 HELD SEATS | ||||||
| SOLID D (0) | LIKELY D (0) | LEAN D (0) | TOSS UP (4) | LEAN R (2) | LIKELY R (2) | SOLID R (12) |
| FL (Martinez) | KS (Brownback) | OH (Voinovich) | Shelby (AL) | |||
| Bunning* (KY) | Specter* (PA) | Coburn (OK) | Murkowski (AK) | |||
| Vitter (LA) | McCain (AZ) | |||||
| MO (Bond) | Isakson (GA) | |||||
| Crapo (ID) | ||||||
| Grassley* (IA) | ||||||
| Gregg (NH) | ||||||
| Burr (NC) | ||||||
| DeMint (SC) | ||||||
| Thune (SD) | ||||||
| TX (Bailey Hutchison) | ||||||
| Bennett (UT) | ||||||
Basically, it’s a pretty simple chart. If you’re a Democrat, you’ll likely win. If you’re a Republican, it could be a toss-up. For instance, it lists Kentucky as a toss-up because the sitting senator might be retiring. That’s based on actions Bunning made in 2007. In 2008, he’s running. That’s how accurate these things are at this point.
Most people are painting the Republicans in trouble primarily because of what happened two months ago. However, history tells them, and me, that things are probably not going to be as easy in 2010 as they were in 2008. There are several things people need to take into consideration before lumping the Democrats unbeatable forever.
- Most pundits, especially the slightly more liberal ones like ABC, CNN and MSNBC, predicted Democrat super-majorities based on the 2008 elections. That didn’t happen. In Kentucky particularly, the Republican Senator won and Obama lost. So, these coat-tails that some media have been assuming is there never has been in some places. The Republicans did surprisingly well in Kentucky given that Kentucky is a 2.5 to 1 Democrat state and the head of the Democrat ticket was being lauded by all media as the greatest candidate of all-time. Something went wrong somewhere.
- History has been brutal on the majority party during the first election following a presidential election. The wildly popular Bill Clinton had his legs taken out from under him in 1994. The exception noted by CNN and most people was 2002. However, there was an event in very late 2001 that affected the elections of 2002. Barring some catastrophe in 2009, I expect history to repeat itself for several reasons. Partially, in large part, because the “wildly popular” Bill Clinton was never truly “wildly popular”. The media just loved him. The majority of people in the United States did not. 43% of the vote just isn’t a terribly long coat tail.
- The dynamics of the 2008 election have been horribly abused by the media. Although the Democrats nominated someone farther to the left than is typically successful, the Republicans nominated a moderate that failed to capture the base of his own party. This left the Republicans putting more resources into the presidential race as the presidential candidate was unable to compete financially with the Democrat. As such, their efforts in the Senate races were not well coordinated or financed. In 2010 the Republicans will not have this distraction and typically outspend the Democrats. Whether people like it or not, money talks very loudly in local races. Expect a much more coordinated effort from the Republicans in 2010. Because:
- Obama is pro-civil rights to the point of being extremely anti-business. A lot of his views border on Marxism. Sure, I know that has been tossed around a lot, but it is true. What little legislation we’ve seen coming out of the House in 2009 so far has been pro-civil rights, anti-business. Even with the economy in the tank, the liberal arm of the Democrat party is in full socialist mode, attacking businesses. That will bite the Democrats very quickly.
- Nancy Pelosi is in charge of the House. She got to where she is as a one trick pony. However, that one trick is now biting her. Running on purely ethics issues and against “the worst president ever”, she now has neither issue to fall back on. In addition, she is as liberal or moreso than Obama, and purely committed to partisan politics. Her stance that no Democrat ever had anything to do with the economic mess we’re in now flying squarely in the face of reality should mean something more if the economic situation continues into 2009. A very simple campaign platform for the Republicans would be that this mess didn’t occur until the Democrats took over the House. If it’s not resolved by election time, look for a lot more people to believe that argument.
- Harry Reid is in charge of the Senate. His ineptness and flip-flopping on issues has not only confounded people outside of Nevada like myself, it’s apparently tiring people in Nevada to the point where some are questioning whether he can even hold his seat. Some pundits are even calling Reid the most vulnerable Democrat up for re-election. If Reid is vulnerable in 2010 as the Senate Speaker under the most popular elected president in the history of the world, something’s amiss. If his leadership is so out of touch that it jeapordizes his long held seat, that could present problems for the DNC in 2010.
- Balance of power. This country has been unkind to the party in power. Bill Clinton had it all of two years. George HW Bush had it for a few years and lost it as well in 2006. It would most likely have been earlier, but the dynamics of the 2002 elections were skewed, and the Democrats shot themselves in the foot repeatedly in 2004. By 2006, things returned to normal and the people voted for balance. I’m not saying we’ll have that balance by 2010, but I think people will be working towards it.
- Failed expectations. People set the bar way too high for Obama. He can’t meet all those expectations. It’s just impossible. He can do well. But, well isn’t good enough. Because of that, expect some backlash over time as people realize he is not the messiah. He’s not at this point even controlling his own party. As much as he preached bipartisanhip, Nancy Pelosi has put the screws to that already. I expect he’ll survive. But, expect some backlash with the constituency.
- Iraq. If the troops aren’t out of Iraq by 2009, look for serious backlash.
- Economy. If the economy’s not back on track in 2009, look for serious backlash.
- National security. Obama painted a picture by choosing Leon Panetta as CIA director. If there is a major terrorist issue in 2009 or early 2010, expect that to affect things.
- Scandals. A lot of the gains the Democrats made in 2006 and 2008 were based on self-inflicted wounds within the Republican party. However, those players are out of the spotlight and now we’re looking at Democrats such as Blago, William Jefferson, Sheila Dixon, and others.
I could go on and on. Each race will have its own dynamics. However, the bottom line to me is this could be 1994 all over again. The only question to me at this point is if the RNC is capable of capitalizing. Now, I’m moderate. However, I’m not moderate on any real issue. No one is. The Republicans hung their hat on conservative issues with Reagan, and that’s what got them in charge. Over time, people confused conservative values with a reliance on religious values. That eroded some of the base. Abuses of power, inept leadership, and in-fighting took them down. However, the culmination was running a moderate for president. He appealed to me to some degree, but wasn’t anything I could get real excited about. It’s hard to get excited about any moderate. That’s just the nature of the beast being open to any issue. When Clinton won, he had to be more moderate, but won on liberal views. When Bush II won, he won on conservative values but had to move to more moderate views as well. Now, Obama has won running on extremely liberal credentials but moved to the middle during his campaign, and I expect will lurch even moreso to the middle once the realities of his decisions hits him ( which I think they arlready have ). I think this is a lot of the reason for the second year curse that seems to hit most modern presidents. As the figurehead abandons the ideology that got him and his minions elected, the public revolts in the democratic way. Obama can not possibly remain as liberal as he ran and was perceived and be an effective president. He’s already abandoned several campaign issues ( we’ll be in Iraq a lot longer, his tax incentives will be moderated ). As such, I expect the revolt to begin in 2010.
That’s all I have to say about that. Today.
30
Nov
Lashkar-e-Taiba sells itself as “The Army of the Good”. Using that moniker, they advocate fundamentalist Islam rule. Azam Amir Kasab is apparently a member of “The Army of the Good”. Now, this is how the “The Army of the Good” spreads its word for the “Religion of Peace”:
It’s kinda blurry, but that’s a rifle he’s carrying. He’s walking around a hotel in Mumbai, India, randomly shooting tourists. Now, I’m not sure about you, but I just don’t buy the “army of the good” rhetoric. Or for that matter, the “religion of peace” one either. Innocent people are being killed all over the planet in the name of “the religion of peace” while all the other members of “the religion of peace sit idly by and let them prepare. Often times, assisting them. This is not a situation of a hand full of rogue religious zealots going full throttle crazy, it’s systematic, it’s world wide, it’s organized. Many times, it’s supported by the host country’s government. Mankind can not advance under these circumstances. If they had their way, we’d be living in the Dark Ages, again.
Now, where this becomes an issue in the United States is two-fold. First of all, we’ve dealt with the likes of “The Army of the Good”. It was ugly. We let our guard down and we’re still paying for the price for that. We will for a while.
Second, President-elect Barack Obama soothed his primary critics during the election cycle by stating flat-out that he would go into Pakistan to find Osama Bin Laden. What this presents is a problem. First of all, Pakistan is our ally. One of the very few fundamentalist Islam nations to do so. Our primary supporter in Pakistan is no longer in office. So, to say the relationship is probably tenuous is pushing it. They like our money a lot. But, I’m guessing at this point that’s about it. US troops have gone accross the border into Pakistan trying to quell problems in Iraq. This has not been received too well. To get to the root of the problem, we’d have to go WAY into Pakistan. At that point, I can pretty well assume our alliance will be no more. Is Obama willing to do that? Are the people that supported Obama primarily under the promise of getting us out of war, in Iraq, willing to support him starting another war in Pakistan when they haven’t attacked the US? The politics of starting a conflict with Pakistan are exactly the same as they were starting the conflict with Iraq. Only, I would assume, Pakistan is a much more dangerous situation than Iraq was in 2003. Pakistan has a very fractured military whereas Iraq was ruled with an iron thumb. When Hussein was driven from power, the Iraqi army disintegrated. I don’t see that happening in Pakistan. Even if it does, the many very heavily armed and isolated terrorist cells will be a small war for each and every one of them. Given all that, the promise of getting Bin Laden by simply invading Pakistan is flawed. When the troops do begin conflict with Pakistan, he will be long gone again.
So, the Obama reason for entering Pakistan doesn’t hold water. Would we do it to support India? I would hope so. But, it would have to be at India’s request and lead. This war on “radical” Muslim terrorist groups is not something one single country can deal with. They’re all over the planet, heavily armed, and in some cases represent the government of the country they’re in. This would have to be a concerted effort by many governments ready to deal with the consequences for a long time.
And quite frankly, given the fact how many people have forgotten, or just don’t care, about 9/11 any more in the US, I’m not sure we’ve got what it takes to deal with the consequences for more than a couple of years. If Obama does initialize a conflict with Pakistan, will Keith Olbermann demand he be impeached? Is Obama willing to put up with his most ardent supporters attacking him?
My gut instinct right now is we’ve done all we can do in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to focus on the instability inside Pakistan. It’s too big of an issue to be ignored under the auspices of being our “ally”. They’ve got an unstable government, huge terrorist cells, and the nuclear bomb. It’s more than evident that the Pakistani government can not control their own country. It’s questionable whether they can control their own government. Iran has been rushing to be the first fundamentalist country to posses the bomb. I’d argue Pakistan beat them to the punch. Whether politically, militarily, or financially, Pakistan needs to be dealt with in a very stern way. The carnage in Mumbai may be Obama’s first test. I can expect the Indian government will demand retribution against Pakistan. How Obama reacts to this could very well determine his future for the next four years as 9/11 did for Bush, whether he likes it or not. There is no pretty option here. There is no way he can sweet talk this away. It will be hard choices probably forcing the US to ally with either India or Pakistan. Walking the fence is probably not an option any more.
Bush assured a conflict with Iraq when he was a candidate for office. Two years laters people claimed they had been “lied” to. No one was lied to. They simply didn’t listen. Obama pretty much promised a war with Pakistan. Were people listening?
I expect that even though Obama has a loaded domestic agenda, his agenda is going to be interrupted by an expensive and politically challenging conflict in Pakistan. I hope I’m wrong.
Scott Ott has been one of my favorite authors for quite some time. Here is yet another reason why:
Afghanistan is a convenient refuge for the moment for al-Qaeda and the Taliban. When our military secures it, and freedom’s song is finally sung among these long-tortured people, what then? Will the enemy surrender for lack of refuge? Is there nowhere else from which he can stage his attacks?
Our enemy is not constrained by geography or politics. His central command center is the human heart, so his places of refuge are legion. You can destroy his arms depots, level his training centers, interrupt his funding, pick off his lieutenants one by one. This we can, and must, do.
But to pretend that you can corner him in Afghanistan, and arrest him or snuff him out, is worse than naive. It’s a willful ignorance that will bring us into submission. This is the Obama Doctrine.
Now that is the heart of why I hate to hear the “Bush lied, people died” garbage. When John Kerry ran against Bush, it was the same argument. “There are no terrorists in Iraq”. It morphed to “There WERE no terrorists in Iraq until we got there”. Bottom line, there were terrorists in Iraq before we got there. IMO, that is a huge part of who we’ve been fighting since. Iraq was documented to have been involved with several terrorist organizations in 2000. Now, 200 is the year I picked because Bush wasn’t president yet. There was no overt political sentiment against Iraq even though Clinton bombed them. So, if there were all these terrorist groups operating IN Iraq and with Iraq’s support, why does Obama think Afghanistan is the central focus of the war on terror? Because there were no overt ties to Al Qaeda / Osama Bin Laden in Iraq. And, since Obama and Kerry were openly opposed to any military conflict, that was their out. We had no beef with the other terrorist organizations. So, Obama just needs to be more specific. In his words, the only terrorist organization we apparently have an issue with is Al Qaeda. The rest of the terrorist organizations get a pass.
That’s not very comforting to me. Now, Al Qaeda was basically a quiet bunch not doing too much since Russia collapsed in Afghanistan. We had helped Al Qaeda in their struggle with Russia. We were sort of friendly with Afghanistan. In very real terms, we should have been friends with these people. Then, for no real reason, and no real provocation, and with no warning whatsoever, our “friends” in Afghanistan decided to murder thousands of innocent “friends” just so they could say they could do it.
That, Obama, is what you are dealing with. My biggest fear if Obama is elected is that he captures Bin Laden and executes him. That terrifies me because I know what the message will be when it happens. “Mission Accomplished, the War with Terror is now over”.
And, then, we’ll be stunned and shocked when the next 9/11 happens.
A lot is being made over another milestone in Iraq. The 4,000th US soldier died since the war started in 2003. That’s five years. That’s about 800 a year. That’s a lot. But, not much is being made over the perspective of this. For instance, about 2,000 people were killed in 2006 ( the most recent readily available data ). That’s just in California. From 2003 through 2006 more than three times as many Americans got killed in California than Iraq. Nationwide, 17,000 people were killed in the US in 2006. From 2003 until the end of 2006, 66,450 people have been killed in the US. Maybe the people worrying so much about the people who understood the risks and believe in what they are doing is for the good of man should worry a lot more about the people who don’t worry so much about the good of man living in their own neighborhoods.
This is very interesting to me:
Angelina Jolie supports the surge. She does because it’s working. In that it’s working, it allows humanitarian aid to get to those in need inside Iraq. And, apparently displaced people are trying to come home. So, she’s trying to keep the surge in place so that they can safely.
I don’t think she’s backing John McCain, she’s pretty well trashed all Republicans in the past although he’s the only supporting the surge. She flies in the face of Barack Obama’s primary campaign theme that he’s the only candidate who has opposed anything to do with Iraq from teh day he was born. And, Hillary as well, who’s basically taken the position it was right when she said it was, and wrong now so it must end immediately.
So, I’d be real curious to see how she would vote. Of course, some people are speculating that she’s gonna be the first female President. I think I’d be up with that.
27
Dec
I am reading right now that Benazir Bhutto died in the suicide attack on her rally.
This is awful news.
I have heard a lot of speculation that Al Qaeda has focused on Pakistan since it’s getting its butt kicked in Iraq and Afghanistan. That makes sense. What doesn’t make sense there is attacking Bhutto. Musharraf is unpopular and losing international support. His crackdown a month ago and subsequent agreement to leave the military only weakened him. Killing Bhutto only makes the actions of Musharraf look like they were the right thing to do at the right time. This is all Musharraf needs to go back to his international supporters and get more help, both economically and militarily. He has done what the international leaders have asked, and this is where it has lead. Maybe we need to listen to him a little more and those not living there a little less.
On the flipside of the issue, although Al Qaeda has been fingered, this sure fits conveniently into Musharraf’s political needs. With an election next month, it looked to the average outsider that Musharraf’s days were numbered. He even hinted as such agreeing to be the Prime Minister. All of that was purely based on the assumption that Bhutto was going to win. Scratch all that. Nothing changes.
I have felt for six years we need to be IN Pakistan moreso than either Afghanistan or Iraq. Afghanistan can be a pain in the butt, but they have no organized government and no ability to mount a military. Iraq was a roaring pussycat. A pain in the butt for sure, but once we went in, there was obviously nothing tangible there. In both cases, I liked going in. In both cases, I think we’ve stayed too long and haven’t watched over them in a true 21st century military fashion. Pakistan’s a different animal entirely. They have nukes. There’s no question, there’s no doubt. They have them. They have a good sized army. Not terribly motivated or organized, but they have one. They also have a horribly ineffective and weak government. The death of Bhutto is just another prime example of how ineffectively that government can protect itself ( if it wishes to ). I also see even more destabilization as protests against Musharraf/Al Qaeda mount. If Musharraf clamps down on Al Qaeda, the warlords resist. I don’t think he has the manpower to deal with them all. Enter the US. Exit Iraq and Afghanistan and keep satellites with missiles aimed directly at their capitol buildings until they show they can behave civilly.
Take all those troops and put them in Pakistan. Make sure those nukes are safe. And, kill Osama Bin Laden. Once he’s dead, and the Pakistanis prove they can respect a government they choose, then get our troops out pronto and put a couple of satellites with missiles pointed right at their capitol as well.
It’s really that simple.
Other Views:
- Michelle Malkin - She’s going exclusively with the Jihadist angles. I’m not ready to rule out other interests yet.
- JammieWearingFool
- AllahPundit has some pics from the scene. Needless to say, use caution.
