American Elephants


Democrats Voted For the Iraq War, Changed Their Minds When Combat Ended, Launched a 5 Year Propaganda Effort to Discredit Bush. by The Elephant's Child

50810530-e1433335595550

I usually have the radio on in the daytime, because I can listen and get other stuff done. This morning I was startled by a caller who said: “I’m 22, and the people my age would never vote for a Bush because of the stigma attached to his name.” He added something to the effect that he didn’t dislike President Bush personally, it was the stigma. Stigma.

Liberals were as shocked and horrified as everyone else at the events on 9/11, the first attack on America since Pearl Harbor.  The 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, (before 9/11) under Clinton, calling for regime change in Iraq, and supporting a transition to democracy passed the House 360-38 and unanimously in the Senate. Under the Bush administration, and after 9/11, there was a 1991 Resolution for the Use of Military Force against Iraq which passed the Democrat-controlled Senate 52-47 and the House 250-183. That was followed by the 1992 Iraq War Resolution that authorized military force against Iraq which also passed Congress with significant margins.

The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003, Baghdad fell on April 10, Coalition forces moved into Baghdad ending the 24 year reign of Saddam Hussein. On May 1, President George W. Bush declared major combat operations in Iraq over.

That month the Democratic Party launched a national campaign against America’s commander in chief, claiming that he had lied to the American people to lure them into a war that was “unnecessary,” “immoral, and “illegal.”

Until that moment, the conflict in Iraq had been supported by both parties and was regarded by both as a strategic necessity in the war launched by Islamic terrorists on 9/11. Saddam Hussein had launched two aggressive wars in the Middle East, murdered three hundred thousand Iraqis, used chemical weapons on his own citizens, and put in place a nuclear weapons program, thwarted only by his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War. Over the next decade, his regime defied sixteen United Nations Security Council resolutions attempting to enforce the Gulf War truce and stop him from pursuing weapons of mass destruction. In September 2002, the Security Council added a seventeenth  resolution, which gave Saddam until December 7 to comply with its terms or face consequences. When Iraq failed to comply, Bush made the only decision compatible with the preservation of international law and the security of the United States by launching a preemptive invasion to remover the regime. Two days prior to the invasion, the Iraqi dictator was given the option of leaving the country and averting the war.

In June 2003, just three months after the fighting began, the Democrats turned against the war and launched  a five-year campaign to delegitimize it, casting America and its Republican leaders as the villains. This betrayal of the nation and its troops on the battlefield was unprecedented. Major press institutions following the Democrats’ lead conducted a propaganda campaign against the war, blowing up minor incidents like the misbehavior of guards at the Abu Ghraib prison to international scandals, which damaged America’s prestige and weakened its morale. The New York Times and the Washington Post leaked classified documents, destroying three major national security programs designed to protect Americans from terrorist attack. Every day of the war, there was front-page coverage of America’s body counts in Iraq and Afghanistan designed to sap America’s will to fight.  (David Horowitz: Take No Prisoners)

There’s your “stigma.”

Did you read the newspaper accounts of the doubling of the death toll in the war in Afghanistan under Barack Obama? Thought not. “Bush lied, People died,” was the chant. Propaganda designed to discredit the American president, who they were still furious with  for defeating Al Gore, illegally, they were sure. A five year long propaganda campaign to be sure Bush got no credit. The ends justify whatever means you have to use. Americans are inclined to like Presidents who win wars. Can’t have that. Remember Bill Clinton complaining because he didn’t get to be a wartime president?



Just a Bundle of Laughs by The Elephant's Child
May 28, 2015, 6:38 am
Filed under: Politics | Tags: , ,

It’s just Hillary.



Don’t Let Obama & His Corrupt Union Bosses Stand in the Way of Recovery Any Longer by American Elephant
February 28, 2011, 4:11 pm
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Economy, News, Politics, Taxes | Tags: , , ,


Wednesday Stack of Stuff by American Elephant

Part of the problem with blogging is that there are so many interesting storied to write about, and nowhere near enough time to write about them all. Here’s just some of the stories catching my attention:

How will Obama block it? — “New drilling method opens vast oil fields in US”

Heh heh — AOL Buys HuffPo, stock takes $315 million dive

Jennifer Rubin“Obamacare Support Melting Away”

iBubble? —  “Apple is Most Valuable Company on Earth: Analysts”

First GOP Senate pick up?“Webb won’t seek re-election”

Gallup — Poll: Obama 68% disapproval on Defecit

Progressive Control Freaks  still controlling — Boston to ban smoking in parks?

Most corrupt administration ever #1 — Obama fired another investigator for doing his job.

Most corrupt administration ever #2 — Emanuel/Blagojevich phone calls conveniently go missing

NASA shock — New 3D photographs reveal Sun looks remarkably the same from all sides



Florida Ruling Halts Obamacare in 26 States by American Elephant

Until and unless a higher court grants a stay, this ruling prohibits the Federal Government from enforcing Obamacare in the 26 petitioning states.

Jennifer Rubin has the details:

I read the section on “Injunction” and could scarely believe my eyes. Was the judge ordering the government not to enforce ObamaCare in all 26 states? Oh, yes, indeed.

Robert Alt of the Heritage Institute e-mailed me, “The judge noted that declaratory relief is the functional equivalent of an injunction, and applied the long-standing presumption ‘that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court.’ So in the case, the judge asserted that the declaratory relief should bind the parties. If the Obama administration wishes to impose the requirements of Obamacare upon the states, it will need to seek a stay of the opinion either from the judge, or from the 11th Circuit.” [emphasis mine]

Those states are: AL, AK, AZ, CO, FL, GA, IA, IN, ID, KS, LA, ME, MI, MS, NE, NV, ND, OH, PA, SC, SD, TX, UT, WA, WI and WY.

Correction: It is incorrect that this ruling only affects the 26 petitioning states, it stops enforcement of Obamacare in ALL states, because, as Gabriel Mator at Ace of Spades reminds us, the ruling is binding on all parties, not just the petitioners, but also the Federal Government:

The law is unconstitutional and that ruling is binding on the parties. Not just the 26 plaintiff states, mind you, as I’ve also seen erroneously reported.All parties to a lawsuit are bound, including and especially the defendants, that is, the U.S. departments attempting to implement ObamaCare. [read more]

Duh! Dumb, dumb, dumb mistake on my part. I apologize for the error.

(h/t Gay Patriot)



SHOCK: Rule of Law Revived in Chicago! (Dems scramble to snuff it out) by American Elephant

It’s ALIVE! …or is it?

The rule of law at least momentarily wheezed back to life in the most politically corrupt city in the country, opened it’s eyes and saw the light of day. Now Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago Democrat machine and very possibly the White House are scrambling to snuff it out.

Yesterday, an Illinois appellate court recognized in it’s decision what the whole world already knows, that Rahm Emanuel, as Obama’s Chief of Staff, has lived continuously in Washington DC for the past two years, not Chicago, and as such does not meet the clear-cut residency requirement to run for Mayor of Chicago. In doing so, they tossed out the decision by the blatantly corrupt  Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, that despite living and working in DC, despite moving his family to DC with him, despite renting out his former home to new tenants, that the foul-mouthed, sleazy little weasel is still a resident in his heart, or something. The court reversed a lower Chicago court, and ordered that Rahm’s name not be allowed on the ballot.

Chicago election law requires that a mayoral candidate must “reside in” Chicago for the full year before the election — not own rental property, not intend to move back someday — reside in. But the clear cut letter of the law is never clear cut when it stands between a Democrat and what they want.

Rahm immediately appealed to the State Supreme Court, and said with an actual ominous cackle, “I have no doubt at the end we’ll prevail in this effort.” Conveniently, Obama’s top adviser, Valerie Jarrett chimed in and let it be known that Obama also thinks Rahm should be on the ballot.

Jarrett made the comments at the end of an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” with co-host George Stephanopoulos, who asked her what Obama thought of the appellate decision.

“Well, you know, we haven’t talked to Rahm, but I’ll tell you one thing we know is that he’s going to vigorously appeal. Rahm is a fighter, and I’m sure — as you know, he will be appealing to the Supreme Court, and I’m sure he will vigorously make that case.”

Stephanopoulos pressed her asking, “Does he believe then — so is it fair assume then that the president did believe that Rahm is eligible and the appeals court is wrong?”

Replied Jarrett, “Well, I think that he believes that he’s eligible, and I believe that he believes that Rahm will pursue his appeal in the courts. And as he said then, he thinks Rahm would make a terrific mayor.” [emphasis mine]

Translation? They’ve talked to Rahm.

Call me a cynic, but when someone offers defensive language that has nothing to do with the question you asked them, you know they’re lying. Snuffleupagus didn’t ask if they had talked to Rahm, he asked what Obama thought of the decision.

This mayoral race is important to the White House. Obama is moving his re-election campaign to that most notoriously corrupt city, Obama’s top political adviser, David Axlerod, has already moved into position to run that campaign from Chicago, and Obama want’s his guy in charge of the city, and the political machine, so they can more effectively, illegally coordinate their efforts with each other, with the unions who contributed unprecedented sums to Obama and to whom Obama funneled untold millions, if not billions, in taxpayer “stimulus” money — not to mention the reorganized groups formerly known as ACORN.

If the Illinois Supreme Court finds in favor of Rahm, in clear contradiction of the law,  look for some of those justices to quietly get “coincidental” nominations to the Federal bench in some months when no one is paying attention.

It’s the Chicago way. It’s the Obama way.

(h/t Michelle Malkin)



Democrat Congress Has Worst Job Approval in Gallup History by American Elephant
December 15, 2010, 12:46 pm
Filed under: Liberalism, News, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: , , ,

Thirteen percent approve of the current Democrat congress — the worst approval rating of any congress since Gallup started polling the issue 30 years ago. That means almost no one approves of this “progressive” congress other than staffers and family members.

Can we finally admit it? Worst congress EVER!




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,325 other followers

%d bloggers like this: