American Elephants


Tell it to the Marines! by The Elephant's Child

Speaking of war protesters, the anti-war loony left continually amazes in their crass ability to offend public decency.

The ever-yearning-for-attention Berkeley City Council had, I thought, crossed the line when they attempted to banish the Marine Recruiting Office from downtown Berkeley, and gave Code Pink a parking place directly in front of the office. That all dissolved in a fit of giggles when Code Pink Princess Medea Benjamin was spat upon by an angry veteran and she started screaming for help from — the Marines! Bwa ha ha ha!

It appears, however, that attacks on military recruiters are not isolated incidents, but an ongoing campaign by the left. Michelle Malkin details the attacks which have been taking place since 2003.

Now, on March 19, the Pittsburgh Organizing Group intends to evict the Marines from their Pittsburgh recruiting office, “and everything inside it, occupy the location and transform it into something useful for the community. We’ll also be bringing a movable cage in which to confine military recruiters until they no longer pose a danger to our friends and neighbors.”

Goodness. And who do you suppose will defend their right to freedom of speech and their right to demonstrate? And who will, if necessary, save their sorry butts? The Marines.

American Elephant Adds: Code pink and other anti-war activists spend a lot of time harassing, protesting and insulting our military men and women. Why not take a moment and write a short email to tell our armed forces just how much you appreciate and support them:

(Just click the “America Supports You” button, then click the button for “Thank the troops”. You can be as brief or as long-winded as you want. It’s not hard, and they’ve certainly earned it.)

America Supports You!



9 out of 4,700 Retired Military Leaders Endorse Obama by American Elephant

Obama Plays Make Believe

Context is everything.

Yesterday, Barack Obama veered off his usual, platitudinous campaign theme of, “Believe!” and deep into the realm of make-believe.

Having served only one-half of one term in the senate (most of which he has spent on the campaign trail), the self-styled messianic candidate has been damaged by claims that he lacks the knowledge and experience necessary to be President and Commander in Chief.

Gee, do you think?

Seeking damage control, Obama held a carefully staged press-conference/photo-op from a museum in Chicago. I don’t know if rooms can have doppelgangers, but this one bore an uncanny resemblance to the East Room of the White House.

The staging was meticulous.

Surrounded by American flags and the flags of the military, atop a carpet of presidential blue, and from behind the closest approximation of the presidential lectern his stylists could jury-rig, Barack fielded questions and pointed his finger, looking very much the part.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but I guess the more important question is how much inexperience does one make up for?

Obama then introduced nine retired military leaders who universally agreed that, even in the absence of any executive experience whatsoever, the neophyte senator has the judgment and temperament necessary for the most powerful job in the world.

By comparison, Hillary has 30 such retired military officers supporting her campaign, for a grand total of 39 between the two Democrat front-runners.

Americans should be interested to know then, that according to the best estimates, there are approximately 4,661 Retired Generals and Admirals who have for various reasons not endorsed either Hillary or Barack Obama. Or to put it another way, the Democrats have garnered the endorsements of 0.8% of retired military brass — the other 99.2 percent? Eh, not so much.

Not so impressive when you put it in context.

…oh, and as to the claims that Barack is qualified to be commander in chief solely because he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning? With all due respect Generals, so did these people…

.

Just as qualified as Barack Obama



Absolute Savagery! by The Elephant's Child
February 1, 2008, 5:25 pm
Filed under: Foreign Policy, News, Politics | Tags: , , ,

Peter Wehner reminds us of the absolute savagery of our enemies at ‘Contentions‘ a blog of Commentary magazine.  Those who believe that we should sit down and talk to al Qaeda, and find ways to just get along, might do well to think about this episode, and consider their response. 

Remote-controlled explosives strapped to two mentally retarded women detonated in a coordinated attack on pet bazaars Friday, police and Iraqi officials said, killing at least 73 people in the deadliest day since the U.S. sent 30,000 extra troops to the capital this spring . . . Iraqi officials said the women apparently were mentally disabled and the explosives were detonated by remote control, indicating they may not having been willing attackers in what could be a new method by suspected Sunni insurgents to subvert stepped up security measures. [read more]

Pure evil!



While your attention was elsewhere, there were some good things happening in Iraq. by The Elephant's Child

Iraq’s leading Shi’a cleric, the Grand Ayatolla Ali Sistani, on Tuesday issued a call to his followers. He banned the spilling of Iraqi blood — especially of the Sunnis, and called on the Shiites to protect their brother Sunnis. “I am a servant of all Iraqis, there is no difference between a Sunni, a Shiite or a Kurd or a Christian,” the Ayatolla Sistani was quoted as saying during a meeting with a delegation of Sunni clerics from southern and northern Iraq.

Among the Islamic world’s Shi’a the Grand Ayatollah Sistani is seen as a direct competitor to Iran’s revolutionary and radical Ayatollah Khomeni. In contrast to Khomeni, Sistani sees possibility for a separation between mosque and government and room for democratic governance without theological conflict. Sistani’s support spreads beyond the borders of Iraq into Iran.

These are very promising developments. Did you hear about them?

Michael Yon reported earlier this month (reprinted at Belmont Club) on Christians and Muslims of Iraq placing a cross atop the newly re-opened St. John’s Church in Baghdad. They had retrieved the cross from storage and washed it carefully before carrying it up to the dome. Michael Yon wrote:

The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people, “Thank you, thank you,” the people were saying. One man said, “Thank you for peace.” Another man, a Muslim, said, “All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian is brother.” The men and the women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory , freedom rang over the land between two rivers.

A lovely little story.  Did you read about it?

On October 29, Michael Totten posted a story about Iraqi Army officers in Besmaya  who raised a thousand dollars in donations for victims of the devastating fires in San Diego. A thousand dollars is a lot of money in Iraq. The average salary is only a few hundred dollars a month. This is a moment when the old saying “it’s the thought that counts” is really applicable.  (More..)  A moving account.  Did you hear about it?

These are small stories, underreported, or not reported because they don’t show the war in the necessary bad light, nor do they reflect badly on the administration–a necessary direction, it seems, for reporters who prefer spinning to reporting. It makes you want to weep, but there really are good stories out there…



Iraq Wants America to Stay, United NATIONS to Leave by American Elephant

In a stunning rebuke of Democrat’s only stated Iraq policy preferences, the Iraqi government is expected to ask the United States to stay in Iraq, and ask the United Nations to leave.

Basically the only two suggestions Democrats have ever made: that we surrender and let the UN handle things from here, the Iraqi government says, “um, ARE YOU CRAZY???”

No, not crazy, just stunningly corrupt and monumentally wrongheaded.

According to the Associated Press, Iraq’s government will soon ask the U.S. to keep troops in that country long-term to guarantee its security against terrorists and predatory neighboring states such as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

It’s all part of a new “strategic partnership” between the U.S. and Iraq, according to what the AP described as two “senior Iraq officials” from different political parties.

The Iraqis also will ask that the United Nations end its involvement inside the country, go home and wrap up its role in deciding Iraq’s fate — a job it has had since the first Gulf War in 1991. The U.N.’s official mandate expires next year.

All this is good news, both for Iraq and the U.S.

For Iraq, it means long-term stability for its democratically elected government and its successors; for the U.S., we gain a permanent presence in the Middle East from which to defend our interests. Both are vital for our security.

Iraq has even hinted, without saying so explicitly, that it will give the U.S. a piece of its oil pie — its reserves of 115 billion barrels are the world’s fourth-largest — in exchange for helping to protect it.

As the AP noted, the deal would “include preferential treatment for American investments” — code for putting the U.S. at the head of the line when it comes to helping Iraq’s oil industry to grow. [read more]

Democrats: wrong on every major foreign policy/national security issue since Vietnam.



Democrats’ Iraq Disaster by American Elephant

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

Democrats oppose the war in Iraq. We all know that…now.

They were for it — when it was going well — when it was popular. But when the going got tough, as it always does in war, Democrats saw an opportunity — Democrats got going.

They campaigned in ’06 promising to change direction in Iraq. They refused to say what that new direction would be, but when they won, they nevertheless claimed a mandate to pull out of Iraq.

The problem that has arisen for Democrats since then is that America has changed course in Iraq — things have gotten dramatically better on the ground, Iraqis are joining with America to fight terrorists and insurgents alike, Iraqis who had fled are returning in droves, and violence of all kinds has dropped exponentially.

In other words, thanks to President Bush and General Petraeus, the man Democrats smeared as a liar and betrayer of the nation, we are winning! And Democrats have fought that victory kicking and screaming every step of the way.

Now the Democrats are pinning all their hopes on the heretofore “lack of political reconciliation” in Iraq. (This from the party that has blocked desperately needed energy policy, social security, healthcare and other reforms for seven years.)  But the idea that America should leave an increasingly peaceful Iraq to descend into chaos, dragging the greater middle east with it because Iraqi politicians are guilty of being not even as viciously partisan as Democrats, will never fly with the American people. Nor should it.

I have little doubt now that Iraqi leaders will work out their differences. Not simply because reports suggest that that is precisely what is going on behind the scenes, but because they must. The Iraqi people have shown by joining the fight, that they will not accept anything less.

The fact is that Democrats have completely boxed themselves in.

They have proven with their opportunistic vacillating that they are unfit to command the nation’s defenses. National security requires strength and resolve. Democrats have exposed themselves as weak and untrustworthy.

They long ago declared the increasingly successful war, “lost”. They have since done nearly everything in their power to bring about that result. They branded the highly successful surge a “failure”.

President Bush and Republicans are on the way to turning an avowed enemy of the United States with the capability to produce and disperse WMD into a moderate democracy and ally to America.

Democrats will never be able to claim any responsibility for success in Iraq — they are long past the point of no return on that flip-flop. And most importantly, the American people will hold them responsible for trying their best to scuttle it.

“Kharma” is coming for the Democrats, and it’s not happy.



Democrats Embrace Failed Abu Ghraib General, Trash Successful One by American Elephant
November 28, 2007, 5:13 am
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Politics | Tags: , , , ,

General Ricardo Sanchez

Jack Kelly makes an excellent point on Real Clear Politics.

In rebuttal to President Bush’s weekly radio address thanking the troops for their service (yes, apparently Democrats felt that gratitude required a rebuttal), Democrats had retired 3-star General Ricardo Sanchez criticize what is now almost universally recognized as monumental progress in Iraq as a failure, and call for America to leave Iraq. (This just as Iraq is about to ask the US to stay)

General Sanchez, Kelley points out, was forced to retire (translation: fired) because he was the General in charge of the Abu Ghraib fiasco and was also the General in charge of operations in Iraq when the insurgency took root.

So here we have Democrats putting forth the man who is in large part responsible for our most grievous failures in Iraq as their spokesman just shortly after viciously smearing and trashing General David Petraeus as a liar. Petraeus is the General responsible for cleaning up after Sanchez, responsible for perhaps the most successful counter-insurgency ever, and who is currently winning the war.

Democrats once again prove they are determined to undermine America for their own political gain at any cost.

I encourage you to read Kelly’s entire piece here.



Happy Veterans Day! by American Elephant
November 12, 2007, 10:24 am
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

Thank you to all who served our nation. We are all in your debt. Happy Veterans Day!

Happy Veterans Day



Top Democrat Blasts Democrat Party Over Partisan-Driven Foreign Policy by American Elephant

Senator Joe Lieberman

Says Democrats are betraying principles, poisoning politics, and undermining America’s interests for partisan gain.

The man the Democrat party so respected and admired that they made him their Vice-Presidential nominee just a few short years ago, has leveled a scathing rebuke at the Democrat party for abandoning the principles of Truman, Roosevelt and Kennedy, betraying America’s interests and poisoning the American political atmosphere for political gain. He has blasted the Democrat base for their hate-driven “paranoia…delusion and deception.”…

In other words Senator Lieberman (who was overwhelmingly re-elected by his home state of Connecticut despite an attempt by radical leftists to throw him out) has admitted what all Republicans and thinking-independents have known for a long time — Democrats intentionally changed their position on Iraq for partisan gain when the going got tough and have since done everything in their power to undermine the war effort and tear apart the country for their own political gain:

“Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically-elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.

Iraq has become the singular litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America’s moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to Al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving, or even that that progress has enabled us to begin drawing down our troops there.

Part of the explanation for this, I think, comes back to ideology. For all of our efforts in the 1990s to rehabilitate a strong Democratic foreign policy tradition, anti-war sentiment remains the dominant galvanizing force among a significant segment of the Democratic base.

But another reason for the Democratic flip-flop on foreign policy over the past few years is less substantive. For many Democrats, the guiding conviction in foreign policy isn’t pacifism or isolationism—it is distrust and disdain of Republicans in general, and President Bush in particular.

In this regard, the Democratic foreign policy worldview has become defined by the same reflexive, blind opposition to the President that defined Republicans in the 1990s – even when it means repudiating the very principles and policies that Democrats as a party have stood for, at our best and strongest…

First, several left-wing blogs seized upon the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, offering wild conspiracy theories about how it could be used to authorize the use of military force against Iran.

These were absurd arguments. The text of our amendment contained nothing—nothing—that could be construed as a green light for an attack on Iran. To claim that it did was an act of delusion or deception.

On the contrary, by calling for tougher sanctions on Iran, the intention of our amendment was to offer an alternative to war.

Nonetheless, the conspiracy theories started to spread. Although the Senate passed our amendment, 76-22, several Democrats, including some of the Democratic presidential candidates, soon began attacking it — and Senator Clinton, who voted for the amendment. In fact, some of the very same Democrats who had cosponsored the legislation in the spring, urging the designation of the IRGC, began denouncing our amendment for doing the exact same thing…

there is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.

There is likewise something profoundly wrong when we see candidates who are willing to pander to this politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment in the Democratic base—even if it sends a message of weakness and division to the Iranian regime.

For me, this episode reinforces how far the Democratic Party of 2007 has strayed from the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and the Clinton-Gore administration.

That is why I call myself an Independent Democrat today. It is because my foreign policy convictions are the convictions that have traditionally animated the Democratic Party—but they exist in me today independent of the current Democratic Party, which has largely repudiated them.” [read more] Continue reading



Terrorism and Communism: Myth or reality? by The Elephant's Child
November 8, 2007, 8:16 pm
Filed under: Foreign Policy | Tags: , , , , , ,

Communism

In spite of 9/11, the first World Trade Center attack, Khobar Towers, the Cole, the London Subway bombers, the Madrid bombers, and dozens of attacks across the world there are still people out there who feel that we have an “inordinate fear of terrorism”, just as Jimmy Carter once accused of an “inordinate fear of Communism”.

Randall Hoven, writing at the American Thinker, takes on the inordinate fear of Communism and clarifies some of the myths and realities of the Cold War.

“To many people today, “communism” is just an old bugaboo–something crazy people used to fear some 50 years ago.  Crazy people like Joe McCarthy.  Or crazy people like John Nash in the movie A Beautiful Mind.  In that movie, Nash’s insanity was manifested in the belief that communists were spying on him.  (The real-life Nash’s schizophrenic hallucinations were of the more garden variety “space alien” type)  Hollywood has given us several films about the bad old days of the Cold War, from The Front and The Way We Were to The Majestic and Good Night, And Good Luck. “

Read the whole thing.



American Hero, Paul Tibbets, Dies at 92 by American Elephant
November 4, 2007, 3:10 am
Filed under: Foreign Policy, News | Tags: , , , ,

Paul Tibbets, Pilot of the Enola Gay

Paul Tibbetts is a hero.

Most often referred to as, “the man who bombed Hiroshima,” the pilot of the Enola Gay would be better remembered as, “the man who ended World War II,” for that is precisely what his famous mission accomplished, saving millions of lives.

The war against Japan had to be won, but the Japanese were prepared, and determined, to fight to the death. President Truman had approved invasion plans that conservative estimates conclude would have resulted in the deaths of approximately 1 million American servicemen and up to 10 million Japanese.

Paul Tibbets’ heroic mission, no matter what detractors say, prevented that much more horrific outcome.

He died in his home last Thursday at the age of 92. He is survived by his wife, three sons, and numerous grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

It is shameful, however, that America has allowed its citizenry to become so misinformed and ignorant that Tibbets requested no funeral and no headstone lest protesters use his grave as a place to demonstrate. This man’s dire mission saved millions in what would have been a long, protracted and very bloody invasion. That our children are being taught differently by ignorant liberal activists and that we allow it is truly shameful.

Paul Tibbets should be buried and remembered with the highest of honors. America, and the world, owe him a debt of gratitude.

God rest Paul Tibbets’ soul. And may He bring comfort to his family and loved ones.

The following is an excerpt from The Los Angeles Times. I encourage you to read it in it’s entirety.

Boeing B-29 Flying Superfortress

By late summer 1942 — nine months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that thrust America into World War II against the Axis powers of Germany, Japan and Italy — Tibbets was flying some of the first U.S. bombing raids over German-held targets in Western Europe. Two months later, he led the bombing runs supporting the American landings in North Africa.

In early 1943, Tibbets was recalled to the United States to begin testing a new super bomber, the B-29. Within months, he was one of the nation’s most experienced B-29 pilots.

In September 1944, Lt. Col. Tibbets was summoned to a secret military conclave in Colorado, where he was told that he had been selected over dozens of other candidates to head a unit called the 509th Composite Group.

“My job, in brief, was to wage atomic war,” he wrote in his book, “Flight of the Enola Gay” (1989).

Tibbets searched for the perfect airfield to train his men and knew he had found it in Wendover, Utah. “It was remote in the truest sense,” he wrote. “Surrounding the field were miles and miles of salt flats.”

The arriving crewmen were told nothing about their mission, according to “Ruin From the Air,” a 1977 history of the project by Gordon Thomas and Max Morgan Witts.

“Don’t ask what the job is,” Tibbets told his men. “Stop being curious. . . . Never mention this base to anybody. That means your wives, girlfriends, sisters, family.”…[read more on Paul Tibbets' historic mission]



Rush Limbaugh: 4.2 million, Democrats: zero by Emerald City Elephant

Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh has a long history of standing up for the military — Democrats have a long history of smearing them, slandering them, slashing their funding and throwing away their votes

But lest you think Democrats hate everyone in the military, they finally found a service member they could stand up for:

In the segment where Limbaugh made the “phony soldiers” comment, he discussed Jesse Macbeth, who was sentenced to five months in prison last month for faking his military service. The Tacoma, Wash., man was kicked out of the Army after six weeks at Fort Benning, GA in 2003, but he later claimed to have participated in war crimes in Iraq and tried to position himself as a leader of the anti-war movement.

Rush was criticizing MacBeth and others who have been fraudulently representing themselves as Iraq war verterans and then using their phony credentials to speak out against the war.

But Democrats had just been taken to the woodshed for refusing to denounce Moveon.org for their ad calling General Petraeus a liar and a traitor, and they wanted revenge! They blasted Limbaugh for smearing soldiers who disagreed with him. The fact that their charges were entirely dishonest notwithstanding, they sent a letter, signed by 40 Democrat leaders, to Limbaugh’s boss, the CEO of Clear Channel.

The Oct. 2 letter to Clear Channel Communications Inc. sought an apology from Limbaugh and a public repudiation from the company. It was signed by 41 senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd. [read more]

Never one to take Democrats stalinist tactics lying down, Limbaugh obtained the original letter and put it up for auction on Ebay.

Two weeks later, Rush has given the dishonest Democrats a political schooling by turning their letter into a charitable contribution of $2.1 million dollars to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation — a charity for the survivors of those killed in the line of duty. The auction set an all-time record for the most expensive item ever sold for charity on E Bay. Rush is going to match the donation.

Final Score?

Rush Limbaugh:  4.2 million

Democrats:           Zero




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,433 other followers

%d bloggers like this: