All Praise Obama’s Recipe for Disaster

President Barack Obama visits Al Faw Palace on...

Image via Wikipedia

It is hard to imagine an administration that is so corrupt, so incompetent, so dishonest, and so intent on getting re-elected at any cost than Obama’s!  Obama is spending  $4 million to vacation in Hawaii ( and yes, Michelle is travelling on a separate flight with her entourage), while still pushing his class-warfare mantra of “tax the rich).   Again, I ask the same old question. What gives liberals the right to steal  from those who have worked hard and succeeded and give it to those have not; at least without first doing all it can to rein in wasteful government spending?   

What wasteful spending you might ask?  Well, here are a few examples of the financial fiasco that is Barack Obama’s administration.

  • The U.S. gave China $17.8 million for economic development and social services.  Of course, we first borrowed the money from China.  So we are paying interest on money we borrowed from China to give to China?  Even you liberals ought to see the stupidity in that transaction.

That should be enough by itself, but here are a few more:

  • $100,000 to fund a study of why chimpanzees fling their feces (maybe because they can … Duh!).
  • $10 million was spent to produce a version of Sesame Street for Pakistan (Why?).
  • $75,000 to promote awareness about the role Michigan plays in producing Christmas trees & poinsettias (Just don’t display any of them on public property … you may get arrested).
  • $15.3 million for one of the infamous Bridges to Nowhere in Alaska (No wonder Sarah resigned as governor!).
  • $113,227 for a video game preserve in New York (I was unaware video games were endangered).
  • $35 million for political party conventions in 2012.
  • $550,000 for a documentary about how rock music contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  • $48,700 for the 2nd annual Hawaii Chocolate Festival to promote Hawaii’s chocolate industry (The government has to convince people to by their chocolate … must be pretty bad chocolate!).
  • $350,000 to support an International Art Exhibition in Venice, Italy (Great, but not their job.)
  • $765,825 to study how college students use mobile devices for social networking (Really?)

And my personal fav:

  • $765,828 to subsidize “pancakes for yuppies” in the nation’s capital (Can you say “blatant vote buying?” I knew you could!).

As long as Obama, Pelosi, Biden, and Reid are wasting (oops … my bad; spending) taxpayer money like this … they have no justification to raise taxes on anybody!!!

On a side note: 

We finally have peace in Iraq thanks to the brilliant leadership of our Messiah and peerless leader, the 4th greatest president in the history of our nation, Barack Obama.  The troops are home and all is well.  Except we just created a power vacuum in Iraq that Iran will be extremely happy to fill. 

A clue for the clueless: This morning, a series of coordinated bomb explosions in Baghdad killed at least 63 and injured perhaps 185 more.  These were car bombs and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). 

This morning’s carnage is clearly an effort by radical Islamists backed by Iran (who manufactures most of the IDEs by the way) to destabilize and overturn Iraq’s fragile democratic government. Iraq’s fragile democracy is on its own; now only protected by a fledgling national security force. 

Why?  Because Obama, in a move coldly calculated to increase his ratings in the polls and help his re-election bid at the cost of Iraq’s new government and the lives of American service men who died there, … rushed to bring the “troops home for Christmas.”   Of course, the liberal spin doctors and their media lackeys are proclaiming it a U.S. victory and praising Obama for his courage and leadership.  A whole slew of pompous ceremonies have been planned to celebrate the “end” of the war.

In a calculated, twisted sort of way, it was a brilliant political move.  I mean, everyone wants the troops home … don’t they!  But I predict that the premature withdrawal of American forces from Iraq will lead to many, many more deaths and much more destruction down the road.  Just wait and see …

Justice or Vengance

David gegen Goliath

Image via Wikipedia

This Sunday also just happened to be September 11,2011 and the 10th anniversary of the attack on the world trade center in New York City.  In church I listened to a sermon by Reverend Joe Minarik that talked about forgiveness versus vengeance.  It was a well thought out sermon and I did enjoy listening to it, and it is often very true that some people mistake revenge for justice.  We all need to find forgiveness in our hearts for those people who have offended us … or how can we expect God to forgive us? 

How does that translate to September 11, 2011 and the actions this government took to punish the perpetrators of that heinous attack?  Did the U.S. seek revenge or justice.  Does forgiveness mean there is no consequences for evil actions?  Can we forgive those who do us wrong and still expect justice?

Consequences are sometimes necessary for us to learn … and I would say it was justice that most Americans sought after 9/11.  Not revenge!  Revenge would have been the indiscriminate murder of 3000 muslim innocent men, women, and children.  That did not happen.  Though we can argue about whether what we did was the right thing, anyone of sound mind and intellect should be able to accept that it was measured, restrained, and that every attempt was made to only go after Al Qaeda associates and their supporters.  We did not Nuke the Middle East.  I think my thoughts on Iraq should be clear from earlier posts, and yes, even Obama stated that Afghanistan was the “right war to be fighting” to achieve justice for the victims of the World Trade Center bombing.

Sometimes I get the feeling that some people do not mistake vengeance for justice, but instead they mistake justice for vengeance.  “vengeance is mine … saith the Lord” is often quoted by certain Christians as an exhortation to stand by and  to do nothing when horrific acts or events are playing out.   To me, Jesus’s lesson of “turning the other cheek” is not an admonition to go meekly to the slaughter … it is the defiant act of a warrior.  It clearly says, “that slap didn’t faze me … would you like to go for the other cheek as well!”  I have never bought into the Marvin Milktoast version of Jesus Christ.  Marvin Milktoast could not have survived 40 days in the desert,  run the money-changers out of the temple, faced down Satan and demons, or endured the suffering Jesus endured during his crucifixion.  Jesus was a warrior … like David or Sampson …a warrior for God … with a keen understanding of where and when not to use force or violence.

God gave us as sense of right and wrong, a free will, and a thinking mind!  The belief that “divine intervention” is the only biblically correct means to stop the evil acts of others is simply a cop-out and an excuse to avoid personal responsibility.  I am reminded of a story about a pious man sitting on his roof as the flood waters rose about him.  A truck came by and his neighbors shouted for him to climb in;  they were headed for higher ground.  He refused their help, saying that he had faith God would rescue him.  The water kept rising.  A boat came by and the rescuers hailed the man.  Again the man refused rescue saying that he was waiting for God to come and save him.  Still the water kept rising.  A helicopter flew overhead and tried to lift the man to safety.   Again the man refused, yelling that God would save him. The water continued to rise.  Sometime later the man stood at the Pearly Gates and Peter opened them to let him in.  The pious man, his faith shaken and feeling somewhat miffed, asked Peter why in Heaven’s Name God had not come and rescued him?  Why did God let him drown?  Peter looked at the man and said, “Sorry. God was sort of busy that day.  However, he did manage to find the time to send you a truck, a boat, and a helicopter.  Why did you not jump on one of those?

While violence is and should always be the last resort, the fact is that if only evil men are willing to use violence, only evil men will win.  Here are a few quotes I like:

“An unwillingness to deal forcibly with violence does not equate to moral rectitude!”

~ Mary Malmros

“Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it!”

~ Pericles

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing!”

~ Edmund Burke

 

 

The U.S. Military

This is great.  I borrowed it from Road Sassy who got it from Michael Leeden’s weblog.  This needs to get around!

From the weblog of Michael Ledeen, Why Do They Love Us?, comments on the US Military in Iraq by an Australian.

Before I came over here I thought we (the Australian Army) were pretty…hot….. was I ever wrong!….The Yanks (I hope you don’t mind me using that word) are so professional from the top to the bottom that it is almost embarrassing to be in their company, and to call yourself a soldier….don’t get me wrong, we are good at what we do but the Yanks are so much better…..they are complete at what they do, how they do it and their attitude is awesome….they don’t complain they just get on with the job and they do it right…..I carry a Minimi (SAW) so I am not real worried about a confrontation but I tell you I feel safer just knowing that the US Army is close by….If we got into trouble I know that our boys would come running and we could deal with it but they would probably be passed by a load of Hummers. No questions asked, no glory sought, the Americans would just fight with us and for us because that is their nature, to protect those in need of protection…..We use the American Mess so you could say that we are fed by the Americans…..they have every right to be pissed at that but they don’t bitch about that they just make us feel as welcome as possible….what gets to me is that the Yanks don’t walk around with a “we are better than you attitude” and they could because they are, they treat us as equals and as brothers in arms. If nothing else, coming here has taught me that the Americans are a truly great Nation and a truly great bunch of people…..Let’s face it they don’t HAVE to be here, they could stay in America and beat the shit out of anyone who threatened them, BUT THEY ARE HERE because they believe they should be here, and the Iraqis would be screwed if they weren’t here…..When I come home, you and I we are going to the US, we will buy some bikes and we are going riding….

So the question arises, why isn’t this sort of thing on the front pages of the various US newspapers? Silly question to ask I suppose.

Indeed!  Sadly, a very silly question considering the political leanings of our US Newspapers and most other media outlets!

Vets For Freedom

I saw a pitch for this Freedom Tour on Fox News the other morning and I checked it out. Looks like a really great idea to me. I think this kind of thing is needed more in this country! We get bombarded with the “anti-war, code pink, veterans against the war” crap all the time. It is about time a little fairness be given to the success and efforts our troops have achieved in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Vets For Freedom Mission Statement

Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics in Iraq.

We support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield.

This post from the “soldiers blog” at vetsforfreedom.org sums it up nicely!

Marines find Ramadi more welcoming than Berkeley
California city officials would banish them

BERKELEY – “The Marines are unwelcome here.” These weren’t the comments of a banana republic dictator or the rantings of a religious radical. These were the words of Tom Bates, the elected mayor of Berkeley.

It’s difficult to match up the animosity of the residents of Berkeley, Calif., USA, with the residents of Ramadi, Anbar, Iraq. I met Ramadis who were so happy to have the Marines among them that they literally hugged and kissed them on the streets.

Children made high-five signs when they saw Marines of the 3rd battalion 7th Marines on patrol and residents insisted they come in to drink chai and eat goats the hosts were willing to kill in their honor.One resident grumbled the Marines of the 2nd battalion 5th Marines never stayed long enough after dinner. Iraqis are very hospitable and dinner can last several hours and long into the night.


Marine “inside the wire.” The year before no one could remove their Kevlar (helmet) outside the building.

Of course, Ramadi was no cakewalk. In 2005, the Marines told of having to run during the entire patrol. A moving, erratic target made it harder for an eager sniper to pick off a Marine. That was a tough time for the 3rd battalion 7th Marines Kilo Company, as told by Cpl. Tar Po.

Po was born in Burma. His family fled that Southeast Asian nation because of the political situation. Thanks to an aunt, the corporal’s parents moved the family to California when he was just five years old. Po sailed through the school system until he hit a few bumps in his teenage years.

“I was hanging out with the wrong crowd,” said the corporal, in his early 20s. He participated in the JROTC to join the Navy, but decided to join the Marine Corps after meeting a gunnery sergeant who impressed him.

“He kept me out of big trouble,” said Po, who later confessed that he wanted to join the Corps to “blow things up.” His teenage years were turbulent and the corporal still regrets putting his parents through so much grief. He joined the Marine Corps on an “open contract” and eventually became a 0311, “a grunt”, a rifleman.

Like many young men and women recruited during a time of war, Po had no illusions. Most of the people I spoke to in Iraq and Afghanistan had joined after the start of hostilities. They signed up during a time of war.


Some veterans will tell you they don’t miss the service, but they do miss their buddies. Sharing an extreme burden makes people bond. These Marines in the “downtown” barracks near the Ramadi government center lived under often bleak conditions, but these quarters and Marines had some of the highest morale in Iraq

We were standing in Ramadi, the sun was beating down hot and we were in full battle rattle. After loading up the vehicle for a convoy we headed for the chow hall, a makeshift building where Marines served meals out of robust Mermite containers. It was going to be a long day.

“I wanted to come to Iraq,” said Po in a quiet voice that made him seem younger.

Choosing to come to a war zone is difficult enough for war protesters back in Berkeley to understand, but it makes sense to any military recruiter. To Po’s generation, the generation whose parents posted “Baby on Board” signs in their rear window, the idea of risk and danger are not only appealing, for the few, there is a yearning to rise to a challenge so as not to fall to mediocrity.

Po got his share of danger when on Oct. 11, 2005, while rolling down Michigan Avenue, his convoy was hit by a pressure plate IED.

After such a severe injury, Po could have left the Marine Corps. He could have gotten out and no one would have blamed him. His scar was an impressive gash across his arm, there were marks from the needle surgeons had pushed in and out of his skin. But Po chose to go back.

After only a couple of weeks in country, Po was injured again during a patrol. His arm was split open. Within hours, he was out of the country, on a military flight to Germany, at least that is what he was told. He actually doesn’t remember much until he got back home to California.

It’s one thing to go into the “unknown” to test one’s limits, this is the motive for many who seek adventure or just want to see what they can stand. It’s quite another to be wounded seriously and head back to a war zone.


Times Square, New York. A small explosion hit this recruiting center where many protesters demonstrate. Ono this site, over 60 years ago, celebrating World War II veterans returned and a sailor kissed a nurse in one of the most famous photographs ever.

At home, Po spent much time recuperating, but rest wasn’t always on his mind.

“I really felt that I had let the other Marines down, like I wasn’t doing my job.”

The events that changed the corporal’s life weren’t strictly limited to his wounds.

“I respect my parents more than ever, they were there for me the whole time. I’m sorry I put them through so much.”

After surgeries, therapy and much pain, the next question was obvious.>

“No, I’ve never regretted becoming a Marine. It’s one of the best experiences of my life.”

Down the Bay from Berkeley, the Fremont Marine recruiting station is next to a shopping center, and just a stone’s throw away from the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station. This is an affluent area nestled near a chain of hills that run along the San Francisco Bay. If you visit the recruiting station, you’ll see a few Marines hanging out with a couple of “poolees”, young men and women who are about to join the Marine Corps. These are the ones who have passed the battery of tests that the majority of applicants will fail.

“Of every 10 people who are interested, only about three are qualified,” said Staff Sgt. Felton C. Williams, the U.S. Marine Corps recruiter for the Fremont area. After completing the first part of the process, the screening, the poolees will become recruits at Marine basic training. Anywhere from 10 to 30 percent of those recruits will not finish the initial training.

Groups like Code Pink and The World Can’t Wait shouted for a ban against the Marines and yet young men and women will seek out the Corps, looking for something they can’t find elsewhere.

“It’s business as usual. We aren’t planning to move that office,” Gunnery Sgt. Pauline Franklin said Monday. “We’ve been recruiting qualified men and women for 232 years. That’s not going to stop now.”

“We failed our city,” said Gordon Wozniak, who was one of three council members who voted against the original declaration. “We embarrassed our city.”

“It hurts to see what some of the people back home, saying the war is pointless,” said Po wincing, the gash on his bare arm impossible to hide. It was a bright sunny day in Ramadi and we were about to convoy to a meeting at the city council. In fact, we were going near the road where Po was wounded.

“They just don’t know,” said the corporal. If anyone had the right to complain about the presence of Marines in a city, surely it was this young Marine who was on his second tour.

On Shattuck Street, Berkeley, this Officer Selection Office was the center of a firestorm surrounding the presence of Marines in Berkeley. After the incident, the Marines are still present.

Who will defend the citizens of Berkeley should they come to some danger? The answer is those same Marines who are willing to be wounded and still return to duty. After a couple of days and a bit of pressure, the mayor of Berkeley and most of his city council members have capitulated in defeat.

Fortunately, as “intruders” the Marines are made of much tougher stuff. If the Marines were able to tame Ramadi, a city that was proclaimed the religious capital of al-Qaida in Iraq by members of that organization, the Marines won’t be swayed by a couple of people protesting.

Despite all the commotion about Berkeley, there was an upside to this story.

“More people inquired about becoming a Marine officer,” said Officer Selection Officer Captain Richard Lund with some hesitation. Not everyone who wants to become a Marine can, but those who do, like Cpl. Tar Po, truly are the few.

Watch For The Heroes Tour

Vets for Freedom is the largest Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization in America. Many of America’s most decorated war heroes from Iraq and Afghanistan have packed their bags and are hitting the road on a national bus tour to take their non-partisan message of progress and freedom from coast-to-coast.

The Vets for Freedom National Heroes Tour is about supporting our troops, honoring their commitment, and rallying the country to complete the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.I agree that at this critical time in our country, we do “need Americans, lawmakers and the media, to fully recognize—and appreciate—the sacrifice of our brave military and the dramatic success they have achieved, especially in Iraq with the new counterinsurgency strategy.”

Tour dates and locations can be found at their website.

Some Historical Precident for Staying the Course

I know that the comparisons between the War on Terror in Iraq and the Vietnam War have been silent for a while now, but as a history student with an interest in war, I feel that America is about to create another Vietnam. Now, lets get this straight. The war in Iraq is being fought in a different way, the technology and strategy are not the same, and the culture is vastly different than the one America faced in Vietnam. However, actions by some Americans run the risk of turning this into a Vietnam for my generation.

Let us start with the basics. In Vietnam, the U.S. ground forces were fighting a successful war, against a Communist insurrection, up until 1968. After 1968, when the Tet Offensive had been stopped and pushed back, the Viet Cong virtually ceased to exist as a fighting force. Also after 1968, the vast majority of troops fighting against the American and Republic of South Vietnam (ARVN) troops were in all actuality PAVN (Peoples Army of North Vietnam); soldiers that had been infiltrated down the Ho Chi Min trail. Still, US and ARVN soldiers continued to take the fight to the enemy and continued to win. What was actually the undoing of the American war effort in South Vietnam was the subversion of America interests through North Vietnamese propaganda, and by American subversives, such as “Hanoi Jane” Fonda.

Hanoi Jane

The Americans who protested against the Vietnam War created an atmosphere of hope for the North Vietnamese government. They knew that if they kept up the pressure, many Americans would grow tired of the war and would push for a withdrawal before the job was done. These American traitors, along with the misguided hippies, created a divided America that increased political pressure on the President until he was forced to do exactly what the North Vietnamese Government wanted: withdraw American troops from South Vietnam. This led to total collapse a few years later when North Vietnam broke the peace treaty and invaded the South.

In Iraq today, we see a similar situation where the insurgents and Al-Qaeda are being driven into the ground; and similarly some American politicians and other misguided citizens are urging for the early withdrawal of troops from the region. If we follow the advise of these fools, we will create a new Vietnam; one in which the United States will have withdrawn its forces to early from a country which, while being on the path to a completed reconstruction, is not there yet. And, if America does withdraw to early, there is the very real risk for a collapse of the system and the decent into chaos or the establishment of a government which could easily be just as evil as the one that we just deposed.

At least, however, my generation does not yet have our own “Hanoi Jane.”

As my final, historically-modeled thought on Iraq, I would say that the politicians advocating the setting of timetables for U.S. troops withdrawal and benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, really need to pay heed to history. After all, Union troops were in the South for 12 years during the reconstruction process following the American Civil War, Japan was occupied for 7 years after World War II, and it took many years for Germany to become reconstructed (45 years … if you want to count the time from separation to reunification). So the idea of applying benchmarks to be met on a certain timetable is a recipe for disaster. History shows us that it may take quite a few years to fully reconstruct a stable Iraqi state.

Spanish Criminal System Fails in Terror Bombing Trials

Many critics of the Bush administration, pointing to the absence of successful new terrorist attacks on U.S. territory since 9/11, have decided that the terrorist threat has actually been greatly exaggerated. Despite reports in the media to the contrary, they simply cannot find it within themselves to offer any credit to our government’s counterterrorism efforts. Therefore, they argue that it is time to do away with the Bush administration’s extraordinary measures such as military commissions, the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay (see Rasul v. Bush (2004): A flawed Decision.), and warrant-less wiretaps.

A few of these so-called experts have maintained that the best approach is to charge terrorists with crimes and try them, or let them go. Some shortsighted thinkers may consider this an extremely noble human rights policy, but as recent events in Spain have proven, it is actually a criminally negligent approach to ensuring public safety.

On March 11, 2004, 191 people were killed and more than 2000 were wounded in a terrorist bomb attack on Madrid’s Atocha train station. The Madrid bombing, along with the 2005 London bombings stand as two of the deadliest terrorist attacks committed in large Western cities since 9/11.

One American, Kenneth Anderson, was living in Madrid with his family at the time of the bombing. Kenneth Anderson is a member of the Hoover Institution task force on international security and law and a professor at American University, Washington College of Law. Ironically, Anderson was on a sabbatical to study, somewhat ironically, the legal responses to terrorism in Europe. Anderson wrote that the “reaction in Spain to the bombings was a curious mixture of fatalism and appeasement, publicly cast as stoic defiance.” It basically amounted to collectively sticking their heads in the sand and hoping the threat would go away.

I doubt that it was simply a coincidence that the Madrid bombing preceded the Spanish presidential election by a couple of days. After the bombing, a decision was rapidly reached that the terrorists were simply not the problem. They decided that the problem, instead, was Spain’s participation in the Bush administration’s War on Terror and the Spanish troops present in Iraq. In what can only honestly be described as a move to appease the terrorists, Spain’s newly elected Prime Minister José Louis Rodríguez Zapatero wasted no time in pulling Spanish troops from Iraq.

It is interesting to point out that, despite Spain’s attempts to appease the terrorists and thus ensure their national security, new wires were discovered a few weeks later strung across the Seville-Madrid rail line in preparation for another bombing attempt. This would seem to me to cast a shadow of doubt on the efficacy of the “safety through appeasement” theory of dealing with terrorists; and also suggests that the terrorists may have other loftier goals beyond simply securing Spain’s withdrawal from Iraq.

Although the actual bombers blew themselves up in a barricaded apartment rather than face capture after being tracked down by security forces, the police had managed to gather extensive evidence on their mainly Moroccan organizers, planners, and controllers. Twenty-eight suspects were arrested, held for investigation, and three-years later tried on charges that included murder, supplying explosives, conspiracy, and membership in a terrorist organization. In a country with a criminal system that is known for being friendly to prosecutors, you would think that swift justice would prevail. However, that is not exactly what happened.

What went wrong … you may ask? Since not one of the 28 suspects confessed, Spanish prosecutors had to rely on massive circumstantial evidence, such as important telephone conversations gathered in third-party countries like Italy. It also seems that the command and control, planning and coordination roles played in the bombing attack by the twenty-eight suspects, although uncontroverted by serious security experts, proved too elusive to satisfy the strict requirements of an ordinary criminal justice system geared toward dealing with ordinary criminals.

Fernando Reinares, formally the Spanish government’s senior counterterrorism stated that the trial judge simply would not admit “the extraordinary mass of circumstantial evidence” which is “crucial when you are trying members of a nebulous group of international terrorists.”

On October 31, 2007, the Spanish court handed down its verdicts. Spanish prosecutors were only able to secure three murder convictions out of the 28 indictments. Convictions were obtained for several defendants on lesser charges, while others were acquitted for lack of evidence. If not for the provision in Spanish law making mere membership in a terrorist organization a crime, the Spanish criminal system would have had even less to show for their efforts. These results are not promising with regard to punishing terrorists; a point clearly understood by Spanish people in general, and the families of the 191 dead and more then 2,000 wounded in particular. Results such as these would also seem, at least to me, to promise little effectiveness in the way of deterring or preventing future terrorist attacks.

However, the message I think Jihadist observers will get from this trial is that they can beat the system. It teaches them that if they can manage somehow to keep any legal accountability for their heinous acts limited to ordinary Western criminal justice systems, then they will have little to worry about. They sure seem to have enough allies among shortsighted American liberals to succeed in this endeavor.

To the rest of us, however, the Madrid verdicts should act as a stern warning to us that the ordinary criminal justice system, even one as prosecutorially friendly as Spain’s, is simply not capable of ensuring the public safety or administering justice to people who do bad things, not for personal gain, but instead for their God and the promise of making it with seventy-two virgins in paradise.

Islamic terrorists leave behind a totally different kind of footprint than ordinary criminals, and it is a footprint that our conventional criminal justice systems cannot adequately process. It certainly seems to me that this is one situation where it would be far wiser and far less costly to learn from another country’s mistake … than to make the same mistake again for ourselves.

Democratic Candidates Dishonest About Surge Successes

Does it bother anyone besides me that the Democratic presidential candidates can’t even mention the success of the “surge” in Iraq?

As Fred Barnes points out in his article in the weekly standard, They Can’t Handle The Truth, even our anti-war biased media has headlined evidence that General Petraeus’ strategy (the addition of more American troops and tasking them with the protection the civilian population) has dramatically reduced the level of violence in Baghdad and other regions of Iraq.

Are they really that uninformed? Or, are they simply being dishonest? Either situation would not bode well for this country if one of them were elected president.

During the New Hampshire primary, Barack Obama did state that the decision by Sunnis in Iraq to embrace American forces was simply a direct response to the Democratic Party’s capture of power in Congress during the 2006 election. And as Fred Barnes writes, looking at the facts, there is no evidence for his claim. The Sunnis had, in fact, begun to turn against al Qaeda before the 2006 election.

Bill Richardson seems to have been on another planet for the last year or so. Terming Iraq “a massive failure,” he voiced a number of inaccurate claims.

He stated there had been no reconciliation, that there had been no sharing of oil revenues, that the Iraq government had made no effort to train additional security forces, and that there could only be a political solution to Iraq and not a military solution. In actuality, both solutions are needed.

Bill Richardson was wrong on all four counts.

John Edwards also provided an explanation that strains the limits of credibility saying that the withdrawal of British troops from southern Iraq has caused “a significant reduction in violence.”

Hillary Clinton basically just reaffirmed what she said during a Senate hearing; that she had to “suspend disbelief” to accept that the surge was working. Hillary went on, stating that the purpose behind the surge was to create time for political reconciliation and for the Iraqi government to deal with the many unresolved problems that confront it. She stated that no Iraqi government action, it’s time to bring our troops home as quickly and responsibly as possible.

I agree with Fred Barnes. As much as I hate to admit it, at least Hillary Clinton was partially correct. One of the goals of the surge was to create an environment of political reconciliation and let environment lead to the completion of the other benchmarks set by the U.S. for the Iraqi government.

And yes, I realize that these steps have been slow in coming, but they are coming. Nine of the eighteen benchmark goals set by the U.S. for the Iraqi government have indeed been met. And, that was simply one of the goals and not the only goal, as Hillary Clinton wants to suggest.

Another, second goal, was to reduce the violence, secure Baghdad, and to protect its citizens. That goal has been achieved.

A third goal is to defeat al Qaeda in Iraq.

How are the democratic candidates going to reconcile this position to that of the many Democrats who have recently traveled to Iraq and concluded the surge is succeeding?

I realize that the Democratic candidates will certainly not abandon their anti-war rhetoric regarding Iraq. That would alienate too large a block of antiwar voters.

However, they could have at least acknowledged the fact that the surge seems to be working and that if the Iraqi government does what it should, there might be a need to look at a change in their policy.

Then, as suggested in the article, they could certainly have eased right back into their anti-war rhetoric by saying that Iraqi leaders must now move quickly because Americans are still dying in Iraq, and at the moment, there is no reason to expect any real political progress by the Iraqi government. Therefore, the only policy that makes sense is to begin the withdrawal of troops.

At least, as Fred Barnes says, that would have been honest!

Why We Fight The War On Terror!

Since the days of Saint Augustine, theologians, and intellectuals have debated the Just War Doctrine.  It would seem clear, simply from the fact that this discussion has lasted so long, that wars based on aggression or greed would not be considered just wars.  America has never waged an aggressive war based on greed or avarice. Prior to World War II, Franklin Roosevelt stated that America hated war. America hopes for peace. So if we go to war, we want to be sure the cause is just.  Our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq meets the criteria of a just war, a war fought for the sake of enduring human values.  This war that we have been forced to fight is about ideology … not terrain … or even oil.

Many Americans like to pretend this war on terror began on September 11, 2001. However, the Fascist Islamic Fundamentalists declared war on us way before 9/11, and they have shown us time and time again who they are and why they must be stopped.Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have been waging a war against the United States for many years.  On November 5, 1998, Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were indicted in a Manhattan courthouse for conspiring to attack U.S. facilities overseas and to kill American citizens.  It was found then that he and Al-Qaeda had attempted to obtain components to nuclear weapons and chemical weapons as far back as 1993.  Contrary to the popular myths spun in our left-wing media outlets, it was also found that Al-Qaeda had forged an alliance with the government of Iran, and had also reached an agreement with Saddam Hussein himself in regards to weapons development.

Here are just a few of the many other examples to illustrate the kind of brutal and barbaric enemy we are up against:

November 4, 1979: Fifty-two American citizens were taken hostage when militant students of radical Islam stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.  After 444 days in captivity, they were released when Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980.

December 12, 1983: Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait by an Iranian backed group called Al Dawa or “The Call.” Six people were killed and 80 more were injured.

March 16, 1984: Islamic Jihad kidnapped and later murdered Political Officer William Buckley in Beirut, Lebanon.

December 1985: Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks.

April 5, 1986: A bomb destroys the LaBelle discotheque in West Berlin.  The discotheque was known to be often frequented by U.S. serviceman.  This attack killed one American and one German, and wounded 150, including 44 Americans.

August 7, 1998:  Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.  In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is injured among the 10 killed and 77 injured.


October 12, 2000:  A terrorist bomb badly damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and wounding 39 more.

September 11, 2001: Nineteen terrorists with known ties to Al-Qaeda hijacked four U.S. airliners and flew two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and one into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.  The fourth, also on its way toward Washington, D.C. crashed into a field near Shanksville, PA when courageous Americans tried to retake the hijacked airliner from the terrorists. Over 5,000 innocent civilians were killed in New York City, as many as 200 were killed at the Pentagon site, and 45 were killed at the Shanksville site.

January 23, 2002: Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl, was kidnapped and murdered on video by an Islamic group in Pakistan. His grave was found near Karachi on May 16.

Tom Fox: In 2005 terrorists group in Iraq calling themselves the Swords of the Righteousness Brigade took four Western peace activists hostage. Tom Fox, a fifty-four-year-old American with a group called Christian Peacemaker Teams was tied up and shot in the head.  His body was dumped near a railroad in Baghdad. When his body was recovered, it clearly showed that this peace activist had been badly tortured before somebody put a bullet in his brain.  What is righteous about that?

Nick Berg: Nick Berg was an American contractor in his mid-thirties working to help rebuild Iraq’s telecommunications infrastructure.  Captured by terrorists, he was brought in front of a video camera and pinned him down while Abu Musab al-Zarqawi cut off is head.  This was a heinous act stemming from a brutal belief system with absolutely no redeeming qualities!

Today’s extreme Muslim fundamentalist ardently believes that Allah has all the answers; therefore, they do not need Western science. While the modern world moves forward, they remain mired in their barbaric self-imposed Dark Ages.  They are true believers. And … to an Islamic terrorist, the thought of dying for Allah and getting the chance to make it with seventy-two virgins would probably seem more appealing than real life. Especially if he takes enough infidels with him … then he will become a real hero. He will be honored, and his family will be well looked after financially by friends, neighbors and, oh yeah, Saddam Hussein … were he still around.

Fighting such a war requires that we know who we are and what we stand for.  I believe that most Americans, with the exception of a few self-loathing left-wing liberals, still know what this country stands for. Throughout our country’s history, American soldiers have fought and died around the globe to protect the basic human rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The United States did not invent these rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; these certain, unalienable rights were not granted to us by our government.  According to our Founding Fathers and Thomas Jefferson, God granted them to us.  Yes, I know … in certain privileged politically correct circles, it has become insulting to point out the source of these rights.

Many people have argued that Iraq posed no threat to our national security. I think those people have either a very poor, or a selective, memory. I see very little difference between Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden and three of the twentieth century’s most evil and bloodiest despots, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and Joseph Stalin.  I also see little difference between Nazism, Communism and Islamic fascism.  The murderous and thankfully, now overthrown, Saddam Hussein made it very clear that he was an enemy of the United States, his neighbors, and even other Iraqis.

If we had never gone into Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and he would still be killing anyone who dared to disagree with him.  Kurds, if they didn’t tow the line, would still be gassed, their bodies left in the street where they had fallen, as a stark reminder to all the other “traitors” that the price of defiance is an ugly death. Saddam’s loyal minions would still be rounding up “troublemakers” by the hundreds … men, women, even young children … blindfolding them, executing them, and then dumping their bodies in unmarked mass graves. “Enemies of the state” would still be tortured (and not simply with water boarding) till they confessed to what ever was needed. Saddam’s “special police” would still be raping Iraqi women to extract information from their “suspect” husbands. Let us also not forget the special fund Saddam Hussein set up to support the families of martyred suicide bombers. You know, I kind of think that Saddam Hussein would qualify as a weapon of mass destruction himself.

It is hard to imagine that our liberal left-wingers, being such staunch supporters of human rights, would ever be willing to look the other way and ignore the humanitarian aspect of this war in Iraq.And rest assured, Iraq would be working hard to build a nuclear bomb.  Saddam would never sit back and allow Iran to have the only Muslim-held bomb in the Middle East.  The United States would then have not one, but two radical Muslim countries armed with nuclear weapons to contend with.  In fact, Saddam Hussein might already have had a nuclear weapon if not for the Israelis, who in 1981, had the courage to blow up the nuclear reactor France was busy building for him.

Some Democrats like to compare the war in Iraq to the war in Vietnam. We have heard it again and again.  Iraq is a new Vietnam. In one aspect, they may actually be right.  This may become a self-fulfilling prophecy; especially if they actually get their way.  Remember how Liberal Democrats were overjoyed when American forces were pulled out of Vietnam.  They had won their battle for peace.  However, they remained strangely silent and looked the other way while almost a million South Vietnamese were tortured and murdered, or died in “reeducation camps.” Many perished at sea in a last desperate bid to gain freedom.

I suspect that some of today’s liberal democrats will be just as silent if, on their timetable, we leave Iraq too soon, and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda turn the Middle East region into another giant killing field.  Rest assured, the liberal democrats will act as if they had nothing to do with it.  They will either pretend not to notice the bloodbath … or will conveniently blame it all on George Bush.

It is one thing to be against the war, it something else entirely to be against your own Country. I admit America is not perfect, but it is certainly not evil!  It is not “American imperialism” that sends our soldiers, sailors, and airman into harms way.  Does anyone honestly believe that our government had any plans for Afghanistan prior to 9/11.  Well, we did try to help them kick the invading Russians out of their country.

Certainly, the United States has a vast presence in the world today. People everywhere buy music and videos by new American artists.  As bad as most of them are, it still doesn’t justify suicide bombers … does it?  Nike, McDonalds, Starbucks, Time Warner and other similar multinational companies take a little bit of America with them when they open shop in other countries.  Is that American Imperialism? Don’t we have Toyota, Honda, and Nissan plants in our country! Don’t we have Chinese restaurants, Japanese steakhouses, or Italian restaurants? Is this imperialism?  Critics say that American financial institutions are merely an extension of American imperialism, but aren’t the Chinese happy to buy up American debt?  Is this American imperialism or is it merely a global economy?  Wake up and smell the twenty-first century!

Some countries export terrorism and fear.  America exports freedom and liberty.  And … sometimes we must take up arms to defend that liberty.  That is why we intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo.  That is why we tried, somewhat feebly, to intervene in Rwanda.  And that is why we would also be justified to intervene in Darfur.  We have never in our history entered a country as a conquering force, to occupy, or to colonize.  In World War II, we invaded France to end the German occupation.  All we asked for in return was a place to bury our dead servicemen.

Most American’s, I hope, realize that we are in a struggle we did not choose, against one of the most brutal enemies our nation has ever faced.  But there are always a few idiots that believe that the attacks on September 11, 2001 were something we deserved, or … the “chickens coming home to roost!”  This is a shallow, thoughtless reaction to what occurred on that day.  Suppose the United States did have a horrible foreign policy; that still does not justify hijacking civilian airliners and flying them into buildings filled with civilians. It is an intellectually bankrupt response that ignores the facts!  The terrorists who hijacked those planes on 9/11 were not downtrodden members of a society enslaved by American imperialism.  They were middle-class, well-educated Islamic religious zealots.  Osama bin Laden was a millionaire. America never colonized the Middle East.  We didn’t pull out when colonialism became unsustainable after World War I.  We didn’t leave a mess of impoverished artificially created nation-states.  Actually … we have Europe to thank for that!

Contrary to popular myth, we also did not act unilaterally.  As of August 23, 2006, there were troops from Albania, Armenia, Australia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom helping in Iraq.  Some nations, like Japan, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Thailand, Ukraine, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Norway had soldiers in Iraq, but have since withdrawn them.   Spain had troops in Iraq until the terrorists scared them off by blowing up one of their trains.

What disgusts me most is the lack of support from countries like France and Germany.  France and Germany both jumped on the anti-American bandwagon saying that we, the United States, were the bad guys in the world.  They claimed that our power and our ideas are selfish and inherently evil.  Of course, the self-loathing left-wing liberals loved every minute of it.

However … it is complete disingenuous.  The French have made quite a practice of sticking it to the United States.  This is after we have saved their butts in not one, but two world wars.  This is the same France that, in 1981, was building Saddam Hussein a nuclear reactor, and the same enlightened France that now has impoverished Muslims rioting in their housing projects.  I wonder how much of France and Germany’s anti-American rhetoric was actually based on real deeply-felt anti-Americanism and how much was based on the lucrative trade deals those countries had signed with Saddam Hussein.  In 2001, France was Iraq’s number one trading partner and France’s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, had signed extensive oil contracts with Saddam Hussein worth about $650 billion.  Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounted to about $350 million annually and Saddam Hussein had ordered Iraqi domestic business to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany’s “firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.”

Who is fooling who?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.