Filed under: Foreign Policy, Iraq, Middle East, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Democracy, The War in Iraq, U.S. Military
Charles Krauthammer said something important last night, as he often does. He spoke about Obama’s remarks as U.S. troops withdrew from Iraqi cities yesterday:
He referred to what we have achieved as a “sovereign, stable, self-reliant” Iraq. He left out one word, and he left it out because it was a George Bush word —democracy. That was a Bush idea — to implant a democracy in Iraq.
If we had wanted to have merely a sovereign, stable self-reliant Iraq, we could have chosen a Saddamist general to succeed Saddam after the war and gotten out.
It’s true that the democracy established here is a fragile one. It’s still struggling, and we will argue for decades over whether it was worth the 4,000 American lives, as we still argue half a century later whether or not it was worth 36,000 lives to salvage a democracy in half of the Korean Peninsula.
Nonetheless, it [Iraq] is a democracy, and that’s what makes it unique and distinctive, and an amazing achievement in a sea of autocracies and dictatorships — having an effect, by example, on Lebanon, on the Gulf states, and even on Iran, where Iranians look to their west and see a country which is also Shiite, Arab, (which the Persians consider culturally inferior), and yet it has a democracy, it has elections, it has an Ayatollah Sistani who says the clerics ought to stay out of politics, and the Iranians are living under a sixth-century dictatorship run by mullahs.
So it’s a remarkable achievement, and we ought to emphasize what we have achieved in terms of democracy.
And it’s a pity that the president ignores that because the democratic nature of Iraq will establish the basis for a strategic alliance between America and Iraq in the future.
So well done, President Bush, and well done, U.S. troops. You have accomplished wonders that seemed, for a time, impossible. And well done, Mr. Krauthammer, for pointing it out so gracefully.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Military, Politics, Progressivism., Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Democrat Demagogues, Economy, Homeland Security, Obama, War on Terror
There are times when it seems as if we have slipped into an alternate universe. The President of the United States, after an appearance on a late night comedy show, has gone campaigning. His campaign organization, Organizing for America, is collecting signatures on pledges to support Obama’s budget. Is there something a little strange about ginning-up support for a budget by accosting clueless people on the street or in malls?
The Two-Minute Hate Program managed to rouse numerous people across America to deliver death threats to employees of the AIG financial group. Never mind that the employees who did the dirty deeds are long gone, and the remaining folk have agreed to stay on to help wind things down only because they were offered a contractual retention bonus to help out. They were demonized by members of the House of Representatives who devised a special (unconstitutional) retroactive 90% tax on their perfectly legal retention bonuses totaling $165 million, while ignoring the $5 billion in bailout money that the company has already received — that the Democrats hoped no one would notice. And if that wasn’t enough, ACORN organized bus tours to “look at” the homes of AIG executives.
Since the last CBO budget review in January, Democrats have passed laws that increase spending by $134 billion in the last six months of this fiscal year alone, and $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years — before we have seen the President’s 2010 budget proposals — the ones the volunteers are collecting signature support for.
The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new “volunteer corps” and consider whether a “workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people” should be developed. The legislation refers to “uniforms” that would be worn by the “volunteers” and the “need” for a “public service academy, a 4-year institution” to “focus on training” future “public sector leaders” The training would occur at “campuses.” (h/t protein wisdom) There is just something special about “mandatory volunteerism.” Last year Obama spoke of his “National Civilian Security Force” in which he supported creating an organization as big and as well-funded as the military.
Liberals believe in their good intentions. Conservatives care about the consequences. Who is going to do the volunteering that has formed the backbone of America when you have a paid “mandatory volunteer” uniformed army?
“The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation,” according to the New York Times. The administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation. ( Such a bore, having to vote on things). Is there the slightest evidence, anywhere, that anyone in Washington has even the slightest clue about what is in the financial interest of a business enterprise, or what causes positive corporate performance?
Democrats are trying to abolish the rights of workers to secret ballots in unionization elections. The secret ballot is workers’ protection to insure that they are not intimidated into voting for a union that they might otherwise not choose. Last year, Mexico’s highest court unanimously affirmed for Mexicans the right that Democrats want to take from Americans. Banning the secret ballot in America!
The U.S. Constitution says that treaties, like NAFTA, are the “supreme law of the land.” With the approval of a president who supposedly taught Constitutional Law, Congress has shredded the North American Free Trade Agreement. They used the omnibus spending bill to abolish a program that would comply with our obligation to allow Mexican long-haul trucks on U.S. roads.
Mexico, in retaliation, has resorted to tariffs on many U.S. goods, which should send a Smoot-Hawley chill down American backs.
The Democrat Congress is voting to ignore the Constitution’s stipulation that the House shall be composed of members chosen “by the people of the several states,” and is pretending that the District of Columbia is a state.
China has suggested that the dollar should no longer be the world’s reserve currency. Two long-range Russian bombers buzzed the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis at 500 feet when it was in international waters. Russia spun the notion that they might base their bombers in Cuba, last week. The Chinese started harassing an unarmed US Navy exploration vessel, requiring the US to send armed escorts into the international waters of the South China Sea. North Korea is about to launch an ICBM with a range that reportedly could easily include American territory.
And to finish up the week, Obama appeared on 60 Minutes. Among other questions in the interview Kroft brought up Dick Cheney’s criticism of closing Guantanamo Bay. Obama said:
After all these years, how many convictions came out of Guantanamo? How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn’t made us safer.
As John Hawkins said “If Obama believes that the purpose of Gitmo is to get “convictions” of terrorists, you have to question whether he has even the most basic understanding of the war on terror he ’s currently in charge of fighting.”
Guantanamo is there to hold captured terrorists, to keep them from killing more Americans, and for interrogations that are designed to gain information to keep them from killing more Americans. Obama seems to think they should be tried in a criminal court. And released in the US, as the administration may do with some terrorists who cannot be returned to their native country.
We have indeed slipped the bounds of Earth and entered some strange alternate world. We must have.
Filed under: Freedom, Heartwarming, Iraq, Military, News, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Democracy, Iraq, President Bush, Support the Troops!, War on Terror
U.S. combat deaths in Iraq are at a 6 year low. Three Marines have been killed in combat since last August. The Navy has not lost a member to combat since February of 2008. The Air Force hasn’t had a combat death since last April. In some weeks the number of non-combat deaths for U.S. troops has topped those killed in fighting.
Iraqis’ faith in government institutions has vastly improved. 84 percent of Iraqis feel good about their security, 78% feel positive about crime protection, and 74 percent are positive about their freedom of movement. These figures come from an ABC News/BBC poll that documents the improvements in Iraq.
64 percent of Iraqis prefer Democracy as the political system for Iraq. Only 14 percent prefer a strong leader and only slightly more, 16 percent would prefer an Islamic state. George Bush was right.
A poll finding that was particularly interesting was that 53 percent of Iraqis say they “never” attend mosque, while another 11 percent attend “several times a year”. This is certainly not what we have been led to believe
The people have confidence in the Iraqi Police and the Iraqi Army at 74 percent and 73 percent respectively. 61 percent have confidence in the National Government. And Iraqis are optimistic about their future. That is very, very nice to hear, and we wish them well.
Filed under: American Elephant, History, Iraq, Military, News | Tags: Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Support the Troops!, War
Five years ago today, Saddam Hussein was captured by US military forces nine miles south of his home town of Tikrit, hiding like a rat in a six- by-four foot hole in the ground. The announcement (above) was met with jubilant cheers from Iraqi reporters, who leapt from their seats shouting, “Death to Saddam!” and, “go to hell, Saddam!” Upon hearing the news, Iraqis took to the streets, dancing, honking their horns and firing shots into the air in celebration. And they celebrate today, in freedom and very hard-won stability.
War may be hell, but so was life under Saddam’s murderous tyranny. Today, both are over — the latter because of the former.
(h/t Hot Air)
Filed under: American Elephant, Iraq, Religion | Tags: Holidays, Thanksgiving
I am thankful for the health and well-being of my family and loved ones.
I am thankful that I am alive, happy, and retain all my necessary organs and appendages.
I am thankful that I am blessed to live in the United States of America — truly the greatest nation on Earth — where we still remain free.
I am thankful for the Pilgrims, the colonists, our founding fathers, and thankful that I know liberal revisionist history is codswollop.
I am thankful that my Congressman, Dave Reichert, won, and that Al Franken may yet fail to steal a senate seat in Minnesota.
I am thankful that I am blessed with everything I need: food, drink, warmth, heat, light, clothing and healthcare, and many comforts above and beyond that which I require.
I am deeply thankful for my neighbors; good people and good friends who are facing very difficult times.
I am thankful for our armed forces who keep us safe at great peril and sacrifice. And I am so thankful and happy that they have prevailed and won the war in Iraq, and achieved great victories in Afghanistan.
It is highly out of fashion at present, but I am still very thankful for President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.
I am thankful for the wisdom I gain every day from others.
I am thankful for all of our readers.
I am thankful for fresh apple cider, thick socks and down pillows.
I am thankful that I have more blessings than I can count here.
And I am thankful that there is a God in Heaven who loves us, and has blessed each and every one of us, no matter our circumstances, which we would all realize if only we would take the time to be thankful.
Now, on another note. Which looks more like your Thanksgiving? The picture above, or the picture below?
Happy Thanksgiving!
(Image credit: Karen Bucher; h/t Gizmodo)
Filed under: History, Iraq, Military, Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Iraqi Democracy, U.S. Military, War in Iraq, Winning In Iraq
That’s what Michael Yon reports today in the New York Post. Michael Yon has been reporting on the War on Terror since December 2004 at Michaelyon-online.com. His latest book is Moment of Truth in Iraq , and I highly recommend it. The civil war, he says, is completely over. Muqtada al-Sadr has lost a lot of support among the Shia. Many view him as one whose influence derives solely from respect for his father.
The Iraqi Army continues to grow stronger and more professional by the month. Even the National Police, who last year were thought of as militia members in uniform and drew attacks, are slowly gaining acceptance and respect. U.S. soldiers’ mentoring is working, and bonds of trust are being built between U.S. and Iraqi soldiers, police and citizens. “The United States”, says Yon, “has a new ally in Iraq. And if both sides continue to nurture this bond, it will create a permanent partnership of mutual benefit.”
Iraqis are tired of war and ready to get back to school, to business and to living life as it should be.
Do read the whole short article. The media have lost interest in Iraq, and prefer to think of it, if they think of it at all, as Bush’s failed war. It is instead, a great Bush success. It’s hard now to remember what an awful situation Iraq was in 2003.
I remember the Iraqis voting for the first time. We all remember the purple fingers. U.S. soldiers guarding the Iraqis lined up to enter the polling place noted a very pregnant Iraqi woman in line. She went into labor while she waited in line, and a U.S. Medic came to her aid, delivered the baby, and the woman planted the baby in the soldier’s arms, and went in to vote.
Do not belittle Iraqi democracy. A people who endured the torture, the terror and brutality of a tyrant like Saddam Hussein could teach us a few things about the importance of the right to vote.
Filed under: Economy, Education, Energy, Environment, Health Care, Iraq, Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Bad Ideas, Democrat Demagogues, Office of the President-elect
Immediately after the election, the Office of the President-elect posted their agenda at Change.gov. Then it quickly disappeared and the website displayed only the following:
The Agenda
President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden have developed innovative approaches to challenge the status quo in Washington and to bring about the kind of change America needs.
The Obama Administration has a comprehensive and detailed agenda to carry out its policies. The principal priorities of the Obama Administration include: a plan to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives.
Well, today it’s all back, so you can read the whole thing should you so desire. I find this little paragraph sufficiently troubling. It is still ‘I will stop the rising of the seas’ stuff. These eight priorities would occupy, and have occupied, the presidencies of at least eight different administrations, and even more.
Presidents have been trying to improve the education of our children, for example, ever since the Eisenhower administration at least, and no one has ever been willing to tackle the root of the problems. President Bush, with No Child Left Behind, has made an effort to let parents and schools know how their kids are doing compared to the rest of the nation, and had some distinct success in improvement as a result.
Obama is going to fix everything, specifically by paying for everything. Community College? Free. Afterschool programs, sure. Preschool programs, of course. Get the kids early— “The Zero to Five” program. Support good schools and close low-performing charter schools. Make Math and Science education a priority — that’s the one every administration has done, to little effect, but hope springs eternal.
I want to give Obama every chance, yet the economic crisis suggests that raising taxes and major government spending are clearly not the best approach. Obama apparently wants to model his program after FDR’s disastrous approach to the Great Depression, by raising taxes, canceling free trade agreements, instituting all sorts of government make-work programs, and building ‘infrastructure’. It is just that sort of thing that extended the depression into the 1950s in many parts of the country.
Obama is a climate hysteric. That is, he firmly believes that global warming is a problem rather than a natural part of the earth’s constant warming and cooling. He believes that we can actually do something to stop the earth from warming if we just shut down all the nasty fossil fuels and switch to wind and solar energy. Of course since global warming has stopped in the last ten years, perhaps he can just take credit for that and not mess with the rest.
He believes firmly, as do the environmental organizations to which he owes so much, that we can create millions of “green jobs”. But if you destroy an existing job in the oil industry in order to create one in a so-called ‘green’ industry — you have done nothing for the economy at all. There is simply no evidence that the so-called “renewable energy” producers can replace our dependence on fossil fuels in the foreseeable future.
There is an absence of understanding of what the free market is, why it works, and why you ignore it at your peril. They’re blaming it on “deregulation”, in the false notion that the government just wasn’t regulating enough.
There is a lot of “hope” here, but the agenda is more than a little short on the specifics that might promote some confidence. There is a lack of understanding of history, our history, and a lack of understanding of the programs and policies of past presidents and what they accomplished and where they failed. I find it troubling.
Filed under: Economy, Education, Election 2008, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Health Care, Iraq, Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: 2008 Election, Backgrounder, Campaign Politics
Most websites that include politics have last minute advice, but it is noticeable. Everybody’s exhausted. Too many polls, too many ads, too many mailers, too much spin, too many lies and too much emotion.
Voting is far too serious a matter to be done on the basis of emotion. This is not a popularity contest, or it shouldn’t be. There is a lot of trouble on the horizon, and we are electing people to deal with it as our representatives. To be our servants. They are going to work for us. Have you considered their applications carefully? Have you studied their resumés and looked for the real meaning behind the carefully chosen words?
Here is the best Election ‘08 Backgrounder I have seen, from Investors Business Daily. A checklist, if you will, of things you should consider before you go to the polls. And there are links to further information if you want it. I hope this helps.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Election 2008, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Liberalism, Military, The Elephant's Child | Tags: In His Own Words, Liberal lies
Filed under: Election 2008, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Military, Politics, Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Democrat Demagogues, Liberal lies, War in Iraq
“I’ve fought for open, ethical and accountable government my whole public life.”
BWA HA HA HA!
Filed under: Election 2008, Iraq, Military, Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: George W. Bush, The Consequences of War
Back at the Saddleback Church debate, Obama was asked by Pastor Rick Warren what was the most gut-wrenching decision he ever had to make and what was the process he used to make it?
Obama said:
The opposition to the war in Iraq was as tough a decision that I’ve had to make, not only because there were political consequences but also because Saddam Hussein was a bad person and there was no doubt that he he meant America ill. But I was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction and do we know how the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Kurds are going to get along in a post-Saddam situation” What’s our assessment as to how this will affect the battle against terrorists like Al-Qaeda? Have we finished the job in Afghanistan? And now as the war went forward, very difficult about how long do you keep funding the war if you strongly believe that it’s not in our national interest. At the same time you don’t want to have troops who are out there without the equipment they need.
This was not what he said when he opposed the war. He opposed the war because he represented a district that was opposed to the war, and it had no political consequences for him whatsoever since he was only a member of the Illinois state legislature. But his story has changed more than once.
Conservatives and Liberals think differently about war, and do so as a result of their differing visions of life.
Conservatives believe that mankind is imperfect: partly good, partly evil, prone to selfishness, greed, bad temper, cheating, crime, cruelty as well as all the good things. Because man is imperfect, we cannot expect perfection and must look for ways to modify bad behavior, and prevent crime. But because man is imperfect, it will be a constant struggle, and you will need a certain amount of stoical resignation.
Liberals believe that man is perfectible, and the right government, the right laws, the proper controls will fix things, and if they don’t, then you have to fix the government and the laws. Man is born an empty slate and is formed by his environment and his government and laws. If the world is not what it “should be” then you have to fix it, by putting the “right” people in charge.
Conservatives believe that war is a natural part of mankind arising from man’s imperfect nature. And that we must try to manage those impulses and try to prevent war, although there have always been wars. We must learn more about how to sustain peace. It is a slow process.
Liberals believe that war is a matter of misunderstanding or paranoid emotions that override rationality. They feel the need to explain war and crime, rather than prevent it.
When we were attacked on 9/11, George W. Bush understood that we were looking at a long war with a radical part of Islam that yearned for a return to the days of the Caliphate and the submission of the free world to the rule of Islam. That though it would begin with the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, the war would not end there. He said:
Now this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago;, where no ground troops were used and not a single American life was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.
President Bush was looking ten years down the road and trying to see how to manage those “impulses.” Barack Obama, writing in the Hyde Park Herald a week after 9/11, presented the typical liberal response, trying to explain the “paranoid emotions:”
We must engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers; an inability to imagine, or connect with the humanity or suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion or ethnicity….Most often though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.
This was a fairly typical response among the leftist liberal intelligensia. Many university professors penned similar paragraphs, and the farther left, the more similarity.
Former Ambassador Peter Galbraith has written that:
Along with Cambodia’s Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein’s regime was one of the two most cruel and inhumane regimes in the second half of the twentieth century. Using the definition of genocide specified in the 1948 Genocide Convention, Iraq’s Baath regime can be charged with planning and executing two genocides — one against the Kurdish population in the late 1980s and another against the Marsh Arabs in the 1990s.
Yet Senator Obama continued to oppose the war to liberate Iraq, despite the fact that the U.S, had amassed a coalition of more than two dozen nations that committed troops to the war and had won unanimous approval for the UN’s Resolution 1441.
Once we were in Iraq, Sen. Obama did everything that he could, including voting against funding for the troops, to block efforts to win the war. He insisted that the surge was failing long after it was clearly making progress, and he promoted a plan that would have withdrawn all troops by March 2008, which would probably have led to another genocide.
Senator Barack Obama was perfectly willing to lose the War in Iraq. There were obvious immediate consequences. But there are also long-term consequences for losing a war, as any examination of the history of the Vietnam War would demonstrate. We are still seeing the consequences of Congress’ withdrawal of funds just when we were on the verge of winning that war.
Senator Obama seems to have the childish idea that the purpose of our whole effort should have been to get revenge on one man, Osama bin Laden. This shows a profound misunderstanding of the history, the intelligence, the Middle East and America’s place in the world.
The Iraq war did not go smoothly. Wars don’t. A war is not a one-sided operation. The other side gets a vote, and in this case there was more than one “other side”. There were bad decisions, and poor intelligence and a terrorist war that we had to learn how to fight. Was it important? Yes. Was it worth it? Yes. Is Barack Obama prepared to be Commander in Chief? Not if you care about your country.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, History, Iraq, Military, News, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, The Elephant's Child, Uncategorized | Tags: Foreign Policy, Iraqi Air Force, Things the Media Didn't Tell You, U.S. Military, War in Iraq
The guys at Argghhh! The home of two of Jonah’s Military Guys post a little article on why they blog, and it is a heartwarming story:
KIRKUK,Iraq — The first class of Iraqi Air Force student pilots were awarded their flying wings as part of a graduation ceremony here, Oct. 13.
Nearly a year after the three trainees, Iraqi 2nd Lieutenants Hassan, Majid and Habeeb, entered the program, the success of the Joint Iraqi Flying Training Wing and 52nd Expeditionary Flight Training Squadron came to a pivotal point in building a credible objective air force capable of conducting sustained operations in defense of the country.
As operations expand and the number of students being trained increases, the Iraqi Air Force will move close to developing the foundational capabilities that will allow it to sustain independent operations and grow to meet future demands. The new Iraqi Air Force stood up after the invasion in 2003 but, until today, all pilots were veterans who rejoined the force….
That’s what happened, and news, but you won’t find much about it in the mainstream media. But that wasn’t the heartwarming part. That came after a speech by U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen Brooks Bash, Coalition Air Force Transition Team commanding general. (Try to get all that on a business card!)
The important part came in a speech by a Distinguished Visitor when his speech was interrupted by a standing ovation:
One of the kids nudged me when the DV started getting passionate in his address. “He is saying that for the first time in our history, we are not doing things for one man, but we are doing it for all the people of Iraq. He is saying the US has showed us how, and we must not forget when we thank God every day, we must also ask him to bless the US.”
Well, an additional thanks to bloggers who tell us the things that do not grace the elite pages of the mainstream press. Because they’re important. And they’re things we need to know.
Which is one of the reasons that the mainstream media is failing in prestige, influence and readership. They no longer understand what is important outside of their immediate circle, and we are beginning to really notice.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Economy, Education, Election 2008, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Health Care, Iraq, Media Bias, Politics, Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Joe Biden, Presidential Election Campaign 2008, Sarah Palin, Vice-Presidential Debate
Good Debate. Sarah Palin was brilliant. The nastiness will undoubtedly ramp up almost immediately. One of the talking heads on Fox said “She said ‘doggone it’ more than once. I suppose that plays well in flyover country.” And he immediately began getting angry e-mails. What is it about these people who believe themselves to be part of a lofty elite because they appear on television?
Joe Biden was better than usual. He has been tasked with an awful job — denying that Obama ever said any of the things that Obama previously said. Giving Obama credit for things he didn’t do, blaming everything on Bush and claiming that McCain is just like Bush in spite of McCain’s actual positions. That is a lot of whoppers to remember. You had to pity the man.
Yoo Hoo, Joe. The financial meltdown is directly traceable to Democrat’s legislative demand that loans be made to people who could not qualify for loans. There is clear evidence in the legislation, and in the votes in Congress. It’s silly to try to pretend that Obama saw this financial mess coming and worked to prevent it. Good grief! Senator Barack ACORN was working hard to increase the problem and had been for years. He trained activists, supported them with other people’s money, acted as their counsel in court, and as a senator, funneled tax money — lots of it — to ACORN.
The Obama campaign is heavily invested in making Americans believe that everything is terrible, and that everyone in the middle class is desperate. I suppose if you tell people often enough that they are suffering, at some point they will start to believe it. Then the Messiah can arrive to rescue you. Don’t be disappointed when it doesn’t work. Obama’s economic plans are, perhaps, even scarier than his foreign policy plans.
Past history says that the vice presidential debate has little effect on the election. But this is a strange year. Polls show that only about 13% of Americans can distinguish between the two parties or explain their differences. That is fairly scary too.
Filed under: Iraq, Military, Terrorism, The Constitution, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Foreign Policy, Liberal lies, War in Iraq
The Obama campaign objected to the article from Amir Taheri that I quote in the article below. The campaign’s response says that Taheri’s article was “filled with distortions”, but their rebuttal centers on a technical point: the differences between two Iraqi-US accords that are being negotiated — the Status of Forces Agreement which will set rules governing US military personnel in Iraq (SOFA) and the Strategic Framework Agreement, to settle the legal basis for the US military presence in Iraq in the years ahead (SFA).
One agreement cannot be settled without the other, for the two are interlinked. The Obama campaign waffles and misconstrues, but the record ends up confirming just what Taheri suggested in his article:
Obama preferred to have no agreement on US troop withdrawals until a new administration took office in Washington.
Obama has changed position on another key issue. In [an] NBC report, he pretends that US troops do not have a “clear mandate.” Now, however, he admits that there is a clear mandate from the UN Security Council and that he’d have no objection to extending it pending a bilateral Iraq-US agreement.
This may seem technical, but it is important to understand. Obama is merely a candidate for the office of President of the United States. He has no authority and no right to pretend to any. Senators don’t get to run around the world trying to make policy. Democrats seem to have lost a sense of the constitution, and what rights are given to what branch of the government. Former presidents have no business going around the world making foreign policy speeches. Candidates who claim expertise in constitutional law should know better. It should be an election changing error on Obama’s part.
Obama has demonstrated a great lack of understanding of American foreign policy, of our position in the world, and of our responsibilities and challenges. His claim that he knows more about foreign policy than his opponents because he lived in Indonesia when he was 6 to 10 and has relatives in Africa is laughable. He sneered at senatorial trips abroad when they met with government officials, as unimportant, yet is with governmental officials that the American government must deal. In his own meetings with foreign officials, as in the case of Iraqi officials he seems more interested in using them to further his ambitions than in learning from them.
In a long interview with the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, [Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar] Zebari says’ “Obama asked my why, in view of the closeness of a change of administration, we were hurrying the signing of this special agreement, and why we did not wait until the coming of the new administration next year ang agree on some issues and matters.”
Again, note that Zebari mentions a single set of agreements, encompasssing both SFA and SOFA. Zebari continues’ “I told Obama that, as an Iraqi, I believe that even if there is a Democratic administration in the White House it had better continue the present policy instead of wasting a lot of time thinking what to do.”
He now talks of “the prospect of lasting success,” perhaps hoping that his own administration would inherit the kudos…He has even abandoned his earlier claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was ”illegal” and admits that the US-led coalition’s presence in Iraq has a legal framework in the shape of the UN mandate.
In other words, Obama was trying to derail current US policy, whild Zebari was urging him not to “waste time.”
…Obama no longer talks of “withdrawal” but of “redeployment” and “drawdown” — which is exactly what is happening now.
While I am encouraed by the senator’s evolution, I must also appeal to him to issue a “cease and desist” plea to the battalions of his sympathizers — who have been threatening me with death and worse in the days since my article appeared.
Obama’s ambitions have run away with him, and his desires exceed his knowledge of the office he seeks. It is very important to look closely at his claims and his promises , and consider what the facts are and if his promises hold water. They don’t.
Filed under: Election 2008, Iraq, Military, Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Iraq War, national security, U.S. Military
Barack Obama has been campaigning in public for months for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. In private, Senator Obama has tried to persuade Iraqi leaders that they should delay any agreement on a draw-down of American troops. Obama, apparently believing that his election is inevitable, is trying to effect his own foreign policy, in direct opposition to the United States Government.
Amir Taheri, has been an authoritative columnist on the Middle East. He was born in Iran, educated in Tehran, and is located in Europe. He writes of this shocking development in today’s New York Post.
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.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of U.S. troops — and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”
Obama’s latest position is that U.S. combat troops should be out by 2010. (Foreign Policy 101, you don’t tell an enemy when you are leaving) His efforts to privately delay an agreement would make that date impossible to meet. Obama’s attempt to surreptitiously damage American foreign policy are disgraceful and completely dishonorable. Amir Taheri continues:
Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason “He fears that the perception of U.S. victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war — that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.
Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.
Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.
Amir Taheri has been an excellent source for accurate information on the Middle East because he has so many contacts there. If this is correct, Obama is carrying out his own foreign policy in direct opposition to the foreign policy of the United States of America, and in opposition to his own ‘public’ position on Iraq. His aim is to bring about failure, rather than success, in Iraq.
Please read the whole article linked above. Barack Obama’s record on Iraq has long been disgraceful, but this is really beyond the pale.
Filed under: American Elephant, Foreign Policy, Iraq, Military | Tags: Harry Reid, Joe Biden, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, President Bush, Sarah Palin, Support the Troops!
While we are all watching the conventions, while the media is busing beating up on 17 year old girls, America’s finest men and women are wrapping up victory in Iraq…
“Victory in Anbar… Memo to Barack Obama: Soon you will have nothing left to surrender“
On Monday, while Democrats waited to see if Hurricane Gustav would be another Katrina and the GOP juggled its convention schedule, U.S. commanders formally returned responsibility for security in Iraq’s Anbar province to the Iraqi Army and police.
Maybe you missed it. The New York Times Web page had three stories on Bristol Palin. The Washington Post’s online magazine, Slate, is running a “Name Bristol Palin’s Baby” contest. And Us Weekly has “Babies, Lies and Scandal” on its cover.
Victory in Iraq can’t compete in an environment where Bristol’s boyfriend is more thoroughly investigated than Obama’s lifelong association with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers. [read more]
General Petraeus: Troops Could Leave Baghdad Soon
General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, said declining violence in Baghdad raised the possibility that American combat troops could leave the capital by next summer.
Asked in an interview with the Financial Times whether it was feasible that US combat forces could leave Baghdad by July, he said: “Conditions permitting, yeah.” [read more]
Despite Barack Obama and the Democrats most vigorous efforts to ensure the war and the surge became, in Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s words, “a failure” and “lost”, America’s men and women in uniform are returning and will be increasingly returning in victory and with the great honor they so deserve.
And yes, that credit must be shared by John McCain and President George W. Bush. And not one iota of credit will ever go to Barack Obama and the Democrats who would have had us pull out long ago, leaving Iraq and indeed the region embroiled in war and genocide.
And yet they want you to believe they have the “judgment” to lead us in the next unknown crisis.
The success they opposed in Iraq proves they absolutely do not.
