When The Chosen One says “I want an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq”, his definition of “immediate” is “not right now, as it might undermine my appeal to withdraw ‘immediately'”! From the NY Post:
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
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 US 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.”
“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.
But hey…he “supports the troops”, right?
Joe Lieberman gave a great speech at the RNC last night. Naturally, the Dems were fuming. From WCBS:
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman said America needs a president that can be counted on in a time of war. For him, the candidate is Republican McCain.
Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent who was the blue side’s candidate for vice president in 2000, said that while Sen. Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for troops in Iraq, McCain took the unpopular position to support a surge in troops.
“Because of that, today, our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor,” Lieberman said.
Lieberman said that in times like these, country matters more than political parties.
“I’m here tonight because John McCain is the best choice to bring our country together and lead our country forward. I’m here because John McCain’s whole life testifies to a great truth: being a Democrat or a Republican is important. But it is not more important than being an American,” Lieberman said.
Charles Schumer, the senior Senator from New York, begs to differ. In fact, most Democrats are furious with Lieberman.
“I like Joe Lieberman, but that’s a big mistake for him,” Schumer said. “To be pro-war and to have his views on the issues, everyone respects that. But you don’t go over to the other side.”
Got that? Chuch the Schmuck thinks that being a Democrat is more important than being an American. But hey, don’t you go and question the left’s patriotism or anything. Maybe Liebs wouldn’t have to “go over to the other side” if his own side wasn’t so shamefully invested in defeat.
Wasn’t Schmuckie thrilled when Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords had a “moment of clarity” and opportunistically switched party affiliation in order to get a Senate committee chair? Jeffords did not have a “change of heart”…he wanted more power, influence, and media adulation (and boy, did he get it). Liebs isn’t doing what he’s doing for any of those reasons, since the Dems are all but certain to pick up new Senate seats (thus diminishing Liebs’ influence). I disagree with Joe on nearly everything, but I salute the man’s love of country above his love of party.
As Ed Morrissey asks, how many ways can the Obamaliar be wrong in one speech? Oh, quite a few. Here’s just one dropping from a whole steaming pile:
There is no reason to believe that more of the same will achieve these objectives in Iraq. And, while some have proposed escalating this war by adding thousands of more troops, there is little reason to believe that this will achieve these results either. …
As Ed also points out, Barry O wants the same surge tactic in Afghanistan that he predicted would fail in Iraq…yet he refuses to acknowledge what the entire free world is admitting, which is that the surge succeeded. In other words, he wants to use a tactic that…uh…failed? But hey, let’s vote for “Hopenchange” based on his “judgment”, m’kay?
Story here. In related news, Hell freezes over.
I would much rather lose a campaign than lose a war. Sen. Obama has indicated that by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge (in Iraq), that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.
That’s all the left cares about though: winning campaigns.
“Hope” and “change” and stuff.
If there’s one thing that the Obamaliar has been consistent about, it’s his commitment to lose in Iraq. From the Washington comPost:
BARACK OBAMA yesterday accused President Bush and Sen. John McCain of rigidity on Iraq: “They said we couldn’t leave when violence was up, they say we can’t leave when violence is down.” Mr. Obama then confirmed his own foolish consistency. Early last year, when the war was at its peak, the Democratic candidate proposed a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. combat forces in slightly more than a year. Yesterday, with bloodshed at its lowest level since the war began, Mr. Obama endorsed the same plan. After hinting earlier this month that he might “refine” his Iraq strategy after visiting the country and listening to commanders, Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timetable is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq.
Hopefully, this will present a problem for Ye Grand Lightworker as America’s confidence in victory in the war continues to grow.
Mosul’s al-Qaeda leader dies from carpal tunnel syndrome and a hailstorm of bullets…but mostly a hailstorm of bullets
Bad news for the left: Another Al Qaeda leader dies.
Worse news for the left: We’re winning the war on terror on every front.
Sorry ’bout that.
Also seriously wounded in the fighting was the conventional wisdom that we are losing in Afghanistan and that operations in Iraq are making it easier for the Taliban to regain power.
Seriously, do these jackasses actually read their own rhetorical guano? Here’s what Rudy said about Obama’s “law enforcement” approach to terrorism:
“These are not isolated criminal acts,” Giuliani said. “They are a loosely defined conspiracy and an act of war. For Sen. Obama to suggest ’93 is the best example of how to deal with this is a good example of him wanting to go on defense.”
He added, “The real problem with Sen. Obama’s answer is he seems to think the 93 situation was correctly handled. It’s the failure to recognize that you had to go further than.” He said it was treated as “a criminal act” when it should have been treated “as an act of war. We didn’t recognize that even as late as the Cole. …It seems to me Sen. Obama is of that mindset.”
In an e-mail, entitled, “Giuliani v Giuliani: 1993 World Trade Center Bombing Case,” the Obama campaign points out that in 1993, Giuliani said at the time, per the New York Times, March 5, 1994: “Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict ‘demonstrates that New Yorkers won’t meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon — the law.’”
Also from that day’s Times: “Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani said he hoped that the verdicts would lessen tensions rather than increase them. ‘It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world,’ he said, ‘that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.’”
Oooo, he got Rudy good! Except for the small fact that the quote they used to show Rudy’s “flip-flopping” was also prior to 9/11/2001…which was the point that Rudy was trying to make (and a point that Barry O made for Rudy). Giuliani is saying that the Obamessiah is still stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset, and O’s response indicates that they agree with Rudy.
After 9/11, most normal people learned lessons from that horrific day. Lessons such as “1990’s-style law enforcement tactics after-the-fact don’t work!”, even if we once thought the contrary. Osamabama is proud of his pansy-#ss demonstrably failed approach to fighting terrorism, and his limpwristed sissy manner of dealing with terrorism will only endanger this country further. I just hope my countrymen aren’t too blind to see this.
Oh. My. God (insert politically correct deity du jour here). Excerpt:
Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else.
Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.” …
I may have just officially seen it all.
By Allahpundit, regarding the left’s take on the the surge in Iraq:
Things are getting better, so by all means let’s get the hell out before they get better still and people start jumping to unhelpful conclusions about the left’s judgment of Iraq’s prospects being also less than infallible.
Over at Hot Air, where McCain basically asks Obama why he would meet with Iran but not with Gen. Petraeus. Ouch!
What? Al Qaeda has lost in Iraq? Who in the world thinks such a crazy thing? Um…AQ does. From Strategy Page:
Al Qaeda web sites are making a lot of noise about “why we lost in Iraq.” Western intelligence agencies are fascinated by the statistics being posted in several of these Arab language sites. Not the kind of stuff you read about in the Western media. According to al Qaeda, their collapse in Iraq was steep and catastrophic. According to their stats, in late 2006, al Qaeda was responsible for 60 percent of the terrorist attacks, and nearly all the ones that involved killing a lot of civilians. The rest of the violence was carried out by Iraqi Sunni Arab groups, who were trying in vain to scare the Americans out of the country.
Today, al Qaeda has been shattered, with most of its leadership and foot soldiers dead, captured or moved from Iraq. As a result, al Qaeda attacks have declined more than 90 percent. Worse, most of their Iraqi Sunni Arab allies have turned on them, or simply quit. This “betrayal” is handled carefully on the terrorist web sites, for it is seen as both shameful, and perhaps recoverable.
…When al Qaeda could not, in 2007, exercise any real control over the parts of Iraq they claimed as part of the new Islamic State, it was the last straw. The key supporters, battered by increasingly effective American and Iraqi attacks, dropped their support for al Qaeda, and the terrorist organization got stomped to bits by the “surge offensive” of last year. The final insult was delivered by the former Iraqi Sunni Arab allies, who quickly switched sides, and sometimes even worked with the Americans (more so than the Shia dominated Iraqi security forces) to hunt down and kill al Qaeda operators. …
Sorry, liberals, but despite your best efforts, your boys in Iraq are losing…big time. You bet on the wrong horse.
The Rasmussen poll results show that half of Americans think we’ll win in Iraq if McCain is elected, while only one in five think we’ll win if the Obamessiah gets elected.
But I’ve got a depressing question: How many Americans actually want to win in Iraq? They know that we won’t if Obama gets elected, but do they care? According to the poll, men want to win while women just want to yank out the troops, consequences be damned.
Here are Bush’s words:
“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” the President said to the country’s legislative body, “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
The Dems’ reactions?
In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: “It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy – to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cali., did not take kindly to the remarks calling Bush’s statement “beneath the dignity of the office of the president” in her weekly press conference on Capitol Hill.
Pelosi alluded that presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., should distance himself from Bush’s assertions in Israel, repeatedly saying “any sensible person” would. (Really? Any “sensible person” would negotiate with terrorists? Got it. Thanks for the clarification. – Ed.)
Wow, they sure are getting defensive! I mean, Bush didn’t mention any names, nor any office names (i.e. he didn’t say “the Senator from IL” or “House Speaker”). By the way the left is reacting, it’s as if they disagree with Bush and feel that it is indeed responsible to negotiate with terrorists. Otherwise, why get your burqas in a bunch, liberals?
What a dipshiite! From ABC News:
ABC News’ David Wright and Sunlen Miller Report: Sporting a shiny new American flag pin at an appearance in Rush Limbaugh’s hometown, Sen. Barack Obama came up with some novel reasons why the U.S. may be struggling in the war in Afghanistan.
“We don’t have enough capacity right now to deal with it — and it’s not just the troops,” Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Obama posited — incorrectly — that Arabic translators deployed in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan — forgetting, momentarily, that Afghans don’t speak Arabic.
“We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan,” Obama said.
The vast majority of military translators in both war zones are drawn from the local population.
Naturally they speak the local language. In Iraq, that’s Arabic or Kurdish. In Afghanistan, it’s any of a half dozen other languages — including Pashtu, Dari, and Farsi.
No sooner did Obama realize his mistake — and correct himself — but he immediately made another.
“We need agricultural specialists in Afghanistan, people who can help them develop other crops than heroin poppies, because the drug trade in Afghanistan is what is driving and financing these terrorist networks. So we need agricultural specialists,” he said.
So far, so good.
“But if we are sending them to Baghdad, they’re not in Afghanistan,” Obama said.
Iraq has many problems, but encouraging farmers to grow food instead of opium poppies isn’t one of them. In Iraq, oil fields not poppy fields are a major source of U.S. technical assistance.
There are other infrastructure problems both countries share that U.S. advisors have struggled to address — a lack of safe roads, schools, adequate electricity, etc. — but Obama did not mention these.
Obama’s overall point may well be true: that U.S. efforts in Iraq have come at the expense of the battle against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Still it’s not asking too much to expect the man many say will soon be the Democratic nominee to cite the right facts to back up his thesis.
Facts? The left doesn’t need no stinkin’ facts! They’ve gone this long without facts, so why change now?
Barry O’s team responds with righteous indignation, and in the process, keeps tasting their Reeboks:
…This poorly researched and written piece is inaccurate in that it just completely ignores the need for Arabic translators in Afghanistan, and the need for agricultural specialists in Iraq. It is irresponsible to report such issues so matter-of-factly without checking out the actual facts. …
The “the need for Arabic translators in Afghanistan”? The author didn’t let that nugget of ignorance go unanswered:
As for the point about Arabic translators needed for Afghanistan, the Obama campaign points to the well-documented presence of foreign fighters there, many of whom do speak Arabic. However, these folks are mostly shooting at NATO troops, not talking to them.
Then again, dude wants to negotiate with terrorist nations like Iran. Such a predisposition towards lethal naivete would explain this Freudian slip.
How much more proof do you need before coming to the only reasonable conclusion, that the dude is an empty suit?
Dems hammer John McCain for comments he made about how we could possibly be in the Middle East in general (Iraq in particular) for 100 years. Granted, I doubt he meant that we’d be there for 100 years at our current military capacity, but considering we still have a military presence in Korea, Japan, and Germany over half a century later, it’s not far-fetched.
Anywho, while the Dems get themselves worked into a froth over Juan McLame’s assertion, I wonder if they can take time out of their busy schedules being shameless hypocrites and liars to similarly hammer Obama’s military adviser who says the same damned thing as McCain! Somehow, I seriously doubt it.
Boy, if this isn’t a perfect glimpse into the mindset of the left, I don’t know what is! From the
b#tch’s horse’s mouth:
We’re going to inherit so many challenges from President Bush. When you think about it, we have two wars, not one. We don’t talk about Afghanistan enough. We’ve got two wars. We’ve got to end one, we’ve got to win the other.
Got that? We need to win the war in Afghanistan, but not the one in Iraq. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
But hey…they “support the troops”, right?
Nothing like a little red meat for the base, especially if it shows what a lightweight Barry O is. From The Weekly Standard:
Obama at last night’s debate:
“As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.”
McCain today on the trail in Texas:
“When you examine that statement, it’s pretty remarkable,” McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas.
“I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It’s called ‘al-Qaida in Iraq,’” McCain said, drawing laughter at Obama’s expense.
Of course, Obama doesn’t say he’d send troops back into Iraq, only that he’d “act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.” It’s a euphemism for ‘I might not do a damn thing,’ and it plays fine with a Democratic audience–but in the general? Maybe not so much…
McCain led Obama among likely voters in yesterday’s USA Today/Gallup poll, and now the Los Angeles Times has McCain beating Obama among registered voters, “with voters giving McCain far higher marks when it comes to experience, fighting terrorism and dealing with the situation in Iraq.” I tend to think this kind of back and forth will only serve to widen that gap in perception.
Update: McCain adds in a just released statement:
Where is the audacity of hope when it comes to backing the success of our troops all the way to victory in Iraq? What we heard last night was the timidity of despair. Our allies deserve better, our soldiers deserve better, and so do the American people.”
Odd that you’ve never heard of al-Qaida in Iraq, Osamabama. One would think that turning on the TV, opening a fishwrap, or an occasional trip to the Senate floor would have given you a heads-up on AQI’s existence.
If, by “stalling”, you mean advancing YOUR motion to the floor of the Senate for an actual vote so America can see you take a position, then yeah…stalling. From Ace of Spades HQ:
This is a little inside baseball but it nicely demonstrates just what tools the Democrats are.
Reid and Dick Durbin are accusing Senate Republicans of ‘stalling’ debate on a housing bailout bill. How did those nasty Republicans do that? By voting FOR a motion Reid himself made.
Yesterday Reid brought up a bill that would have cut off funding for the troops in Iraq and set a withdrawal date. They seem to do this every week or so, I imagine it’s a fundraising tactic. Normally the Republicans filibuster, the nutroots hit the donate button and business goes on.
But the evil Republicans didn’t play by the rules and called Harry’s bluff basically saying, ‘hey, there’s a lot of good shit going on in Iraq to talk about, so let’s have it’. This sets the stage for 30 hours of floor debate on Iraq.
Now Reid is upset that he can’t bring up the housing bailout bill and because the Republicans exposed him as a craven jackass who uses money for the troops as part of just another legislative game to be played.
And to top things off by demonstrating just how clueless he is, Reid said yesterday that ‘a civil war rages’ in Iraq. Harry? You need some updated talking points.
So when Senate Democrats say they ‘support the troops’, remember what they really mean is they support their use as a political weapon but not much else.
If you have not yet done so, feel free to go ahead and question the left’s patriotism.
Not that it’s tough to get those mouthbreathers in a huff, but Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) did her part. Here’s the deal:
Speaking about a Democratic proposal to force Iraq troop withdrawal within 120 days, Hutchison said Tuesday that such a proposal would “put a bullet right in the hearts of our troops who are there.”Hutchison had joined fellow Republican leaders to question the political motivations behind the 35th Iraq related vote in the Senate over the past year, and was trying to make the point that mandatory withdrawal on the heels of recent military success would undermine the troops.
But her choice of words made it sound like Democrats were advocating something that would kill U.S. troops, and it didn’t go over well with Democratic leaders.
I am reminded of the parting words a former friend of mine once used about me: “If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck…”
Hutchinson should not back away from her words. She is 110% correct.
From the AP:
President Bush on Monday lobbied again for an intelligence law allowing government eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails, as the tone of the dispute between the White House and Congress over terrorist surveillance grew increasingly sharp.
“To put it bluntly, if the enemy is calling into America, we really need to know what they’re saying, and we need to know what they’re thinking, and we need to know who they’re talking to,” Bush said at the start of his annual meeting with the nation’s governors at the White House.
“This is a different kind of struggle than we’ve ever faced before. It’s essential that we understand the mentality of these killers,” Bush said.
The law in question targets foreign terrorist threats and allows eavesdropping on communications involving people in the U.S., so long as those people are not the intended focus or target of the surveillance. The latest version of the legislation expired on Feb. 16, and the rules reverted to those outlined in the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Bush and Congress are at odds over whether to give legal immunity to companies that in the past helped the government spy on customers without court warrants…
…Democrats, in an op-ed piece Monday in The Washington Post, accused Bush of resorting to “scare tactics and political games.”
“It is clear that he and his Republican allies, desperate to distract attention from the economy and other policy failures, are trying to use this issue to scare the American people into believing that congressional Democrats have left America vulnerable to terrorist attack,” said the article.
The piece was signed by Democratic Sens. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee; Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Democratic Reps. Silvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee; and John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
White House press secretary Dana Perino responded to their op-ed with her own statement. Perino said that Bush is not using scare tactics, but rather repeating the concerns of the intelligence community about the risks to the nation. “Unless this threat is taken more seriously in Congress, the ability to obtain the intelligence we need will be at risk, and with it our national security,” Perino said.
Later, speaking to reporters, Perino said the Democrats’ use of the phrase “scare tactics” must “be like one of their favorite words — it must poll very well, because they use it almost every time. What we have done is state facts.”
Well, good grief, Perino! There’s your problem right there: you stated facts. The left has little use for those things. They get in the way of their agenda.
If you have not yet afforded yourself the opportunity, feel free to question the left’s patriotism now.
Way to go, buttmunches. Bleed your hearts for the couscous-eating goathumpers who want us dead. Story here.
Under these new restrictions, here’s how an interrogation will look:
US: Tell us where the next terrorist strike is.
US: Pretty please.
US: Pretty please with falafel on top.
US: Whew, this guy’s a tough nut to crack. Send him back to his jacuzzi and let’s try the next prisoner.
Pansies. Fortunately, Dub’s going to veto the bill.
San Fran Nan says the troop surge is a “failure” and “hasn’t produced the desired effect”. I suppose if, by “not having the desired effect”, you mean that al-Qaeda in Iraq has collapsed and is in crisis mode, then yeah…it’s been a bust.
Moron. Keep talking, b#tch.
Irony…it’s not just for breakfast anymore. From Politico:
After a series of legislative defeats in 2007 that saw the year end with more U.S. troops in Iraq than when it began, a coalition of anti-war groups is backing away from its multimillion-dollar drive to cut funding for the war and force Congress to pass timelines for bringing U.S. troops home.
In recognition of hard political reality, the groups instead will lower their sights and push for legislation to prevent President Bush from entering into a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could keep significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come.
The groups believe this switch in strategy can draw contrasts with Republicans that will help Democrats gain ground in November and bring the votes to pass more dramatic measures. But it is a long way from the early months of 2007, when Democrats were freshly in power and momentum for a dramatic shift in Iraq policy seemed overpowering.
“There was a consensus that last year was not productive,” John Isaacs, executive director of Council for a Livable World, said of a meeting attended by a coalition of anti-war groups last week. “Our expectations were dashed.”
The meeting, held at an office on K Street, was attended by around 20 representatives of influential anti-war groups, including MoveOn.org and Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, which spent $12 million last year opposing the war.
I really shouldn’t laugh at them. It’s not nice. I shouldn’t do it.
But I’m gonna! 😀
It’s not every day that you see this kind of gall and chutzpah. From Democracy Project:
Reaching a new low of faux, Barack Obama at last night’s Democrat debate in New Hampshire claimed that the Anbar Awakening is due to fears among Sunnis that Democrats might get their way and stage a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Lorie Byrd picked up on this:
[Debate moderator Gibson] He asked the candidates if they were wrong to oppose the surge. Predictably they all said the surge is a failure because there has not been political progress made. Obama said that much of the progress that has been made was due to agreements made between the tribes in the Anbar Province and that those were made (not because of the surge, but) because those in Iraq saw the Democrats win back the Congress in 2006 and decided they would be pulling the troops out so they had to step up.
Jim Hoft has the video. Hoft adds the other evidence that Obama doesn’t know what he’s talking about:
Not only that… Obama also said the Anbar Awakening was an attempt by the Sunnis to make peace with the Shia.
SORRY- The Anbar Awakening was an agreement among Sunni Tribal Leaders to join together to fight Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorists.
It had nothing to do with the Shiites.
Obama showed that besides hope- he also has the audacity to make things up.
Got that? The surge is a failure, except the part that isn’t a failure, and for the part that isn’t a failure, it’s because of us Democrats who wanted to surrender to al Qaeda. Thanks for the clarification, Hussein.
I’m telling you to go ahead and mark this on your calendar as a prediction made three years out: Harry Reid will not run for re-election in 2010. That could be the only sane explanation for why he keeps saying crazy shiite like this with impunity.
Harry Reid doesn’t know when to give up, or more precisely, when to give up on giving up. After spending the last several months trying to live down his declaration of America’s defeat in Iraq on the Senate floor, Reid once again gave al-Qaeda a propaganda boost that sounds as if he took it from Ayman al-Zawahiri’s latest video message:
Indeed, Republicans have gotten their way in the battle over spending, have forced Democrats to jettison rollbacks of tax breaks for oil companies, and have beaten back attempts to pay for expanded children’s health care programs with a tobacco tax increase. Even though they’re in the minority, the GOP, backed by President Bush, has used the filibuster to block Democratic priorities over and over this fall.
“Who’s winning?” Reid asked a group of reporters. “Big Oil, Big Tobacco. … Al Qaeda has regrouped and is able to fight a civil war in Iraq. … The American people are losing.”
Really? I realize that Reid spends most of his days in denial, but even the media has dropped this meme. The Petraeus surge has driven AQ to the brink of complete disaster in Iraq, so much so that many of them have shifted to Pakistan. The level of violence in Iraq has starkly decreased, avoiding the “civil war” that Reid seems eager to declare.
Remember Hillary’s insult to David Petraeus involving a willful suspension of disbelief? Reid must have a willful suspension of reality.
Go to hell, Reid.
Like a person who loads up on the buffet on Sunday night before starting a diet the next morning, San Fran Nan is trying to squeeze in as much bitch as possible before her New Years resolution to ease up on the bitch throttle kicks in. From Breitbart/AP:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lashed out at Republicans on Thursday, saying they want the Iraq war to drag on and are ignoring the public’s priorities.
“They like this war. They want this war to continue,” Pelosi, D- Calif., told reporters. She expressed frustration over Republicans’ ability to force majority Democrats to yield ground on taxes, spending, energy, war spending and other matters.
“We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference in the Capitol. “But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush’s war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress.”
Asked to clarify her remarks, Pelosi backed off a bit.
“I shouldn’t say they like the war,” she said. “They support the war, the course of action that the president is on.”
She must have had one of those FISA-less wiretaps, because I was just telling Karl Rove the other day on the phone that I love football, scantily clad women, beer…oh, and the war in Iraq. For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm (though the “football, scantily clad women, beer” bit was true).
And this mental midget moonbat is this country’s Speaker? God help us.
The news is stunning. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will announce that, “in a bid to end the war in Afghanistan,” he will begin negotiations with the Taliban. The quote from the “senior source” merely adds an exclamation point to it all.
The change of tack will be seen as the latest attempt by the prime minister to distance himself from the foreign policy of Tony Blair and his ally George Bush.
In a landmark statement in the Commons he will say that the Cabinet has agreed a three pronged strategy for Afghanistan which will [include] security guaranteed by NATO and the Afghan national army followed by economic and political development in the country.
The third prong of the plan is likely to be most controversial — to engage Taliban leaders in constructive dialogue.
A senior source said last night: “We need to ask who are we fighting? Do we need to fight them — can we be talking to them?”
Do we need to fight them? Do we need to fight them??? I am at a loss for words. Stunned.
Expect al-Qaeda’s propaganda machine, relentless in engaging the Information War, to bat this out of the park in short order. Recall that bin Laden’s latest message to Europe was a reminder of Russia’s futile struggle in Afghanistan. This, for him and for furthering his message in the region, serves to help bin Laden bolster the parallel.
One prays that Mark Steyn was not more right — and sooner — than we care to admit.
Yet, on the other hand, I prefer to be alone than anywhere near the new British policy.
Is it so inconceivable to end a war by winning it?
General Petraeus, if you have some free time in the relative near future, sir . . .
Here’s how a negotiation with terrorist regimes go:
Good guys (for those of you on the left, that would be the US and its allies): So what do you want?
Taliban: Convert or die.
Good guys: We don’t like either option. What else?
Taliban: Die or convert.
Good guys: Sounds an awful lot like the first set of options. Still not liking it. What else you got?
Taliban: Cease living or become Muslim.
Good guys: What if we let you blow up a skyscraper once a decade and kill about 3,000 of our countrymen?
Taliban: That’s a hoot, but it’s not enough.
Good guys: We can throw in a few Hollywood starlets, minus the burqas, so you can beat and/or stone them?
Taliban: My loins tingle with excitement! Keep talking…
Good guys: How about a queer, gift-wrapped in time for Ramadan. The squeal like a pig when whacked with a rock…or so we’ve heard.
Taliban: Since Iran has no gays to give us, this is most definitely an enticing option! Throw in some free couscous and an Afghan goat for each of our mullahs, and we’ll think about it.
Good guys: Awesome! See? We can strike a deal, if we just put our minds to it.
Taliban: Yes. Trust us (*snicker*snicker*)!
Why didn’t we try this a long time ago, right? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was sarcasm.
That’s the title of this awesome op-ed from NRO that addresses, among other things, an odd conspiracy theory that Chimpy McHitlerburton is wheeling and dealing with the Iranian weirdbeards on the down-low. From NRO:
I must confess that I am beginning to feel sorry for the people–the men, that is–who issued the now-infamous NIE proclaiming their near-certitude that Iran “halted” its secret nuclear weapons program in 2003, and their heartwarming belief, at a lower level of certitude, that the mullahs haven’t resumed it. This embarrassingly crafted bit of fluff has failed to pass muster in London, Paris, Berlin and Jerusalem, and in much of Washington and New York. Most of us thought this would put an end to any aggressive policy toward Tehran, but life is full of surprises and if anything the call for tougher sanctions is stronger today than it seemed last week.
And apologists for the NIE–a group that more or less coincides with those who still believe in the likelihood of a “grand bargain” with the mullahs–are resorting to some pathetic attempts to advance their policy. Two of them, Hillary Mann Leverett and her husband, Flynt Leverett–both former Bush administration dissidents–have an odd oped in today’s New York Times, in which they argue a) that anyone who proposed “engagement” with Iran in the early Bush years was risking her career, and b) that Iran has really tried to cooperate with us in the past, but got nowhere.
As for a), I’m not aware that anyone was ever fired or demoted from the Bush Administration for advancing the “engagement” policy. Indeed, Richard Haas, an intimate of then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and head of State’s Bureau of Policy Planning, vigorously advanced it, and I think he got various high-ranking officials (perhaps Mr. Leverett himself) to go meet quietly with Iranian counterparts to explore the possibility of detente. And, as I have written several times, a bit more than a year ago, Secretary Rice asked former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales to go to Tehran, which he did. He met with Mr. Larijani, who told him to forget it.
So a) seems factually wrong.
As for b), you really have to read the small print. For Leverett and Leverett actually say this:
“Iran has tried tactical cooperation with the United States several times over the past two decades — including helping to secure the release of hostages from Lebanon in the late 1980s and sending shipments of arms to Bosnian Muslims when the United States was forbidden to do so.”
Yes, the Iranians were in a great position to be “helpful” to our hostages in Lebanon in the mid and late eighties. After all, they had instructed Hezbollah to take the hostages in the first place. They were running the old mafia insurance scam, first demonstrating their ability to kill us (as they did to at least two of the hostages, Higgins and Buckley), then showing their control by releasing a handful. If that’s the “grand bargain” that the Leveretts have in mind, I’d rather pay protection money. It saves on travel expenses and time wasted.
As for the provision of weapons to “Bosnian Muslims,” this was one of the Clinton Administration’s most scandalous undertakings. We enabled the Iranians to smuggle weapons into the Balkans in violation of formal international agreements (CIA at the time was within a hair of accusing the White House of carrying out a covert action without legal approval), and it enabled the mullahs to set up a substantial terrorist-training network through which many of the most infamous killers, including some involved in the 9/11 attacks, passed in the eighties and nineties. I wouldn’t hold that up as a great example of “tactical cooperation.” More like “American stupidity combined with Iranian murderous cunning.”
The Leveretts give us one more pathetic example of Tehran’s presumed virtue, and America’s meanness in response.
“Tehran’s expectations of reciprocal good will have been dashed by American condemnation of perceived provocations in other arenas, as when Iranian support for objectives in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks was rewarded by President Bush’s inclusion of Iran in the “axis of evil.”
Do they not know that the mullahs were playing both sides of the table? At the very moment Tehran was sitting at the negotiating table with us to discuss the future of Afghanistan, Iranian-guided terrorists were trying to kill Americans on the ground. Just as they are today, in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
It’s kind of a template for the nuclear program: on the one hand they make a friendly gesture, on the other hand they continue to produce the ingredients of their atomic bomb.
How sad (yet unsurprising) that we have high-ranking public service personnel who will take the word over some bloodthirsty jihadist camelhumpers over their own commander-in-chief.
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett