Saturday, November 28, 2009

Will Next Massachusetts US Senator undermine our wartime Commander-in-Chief?

What people outside of Massachusetts might not know is that in mid-January, Massachusetts is having a special election to fill the US Senate seat vacated by Sen. Edward Kennedy.

The two front-runners for the Democrats are State Attorney General Martha Coakley and Rep. Michael Capuano.

Both Coakley and Capuano support withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. Since Capuano serves in the House of Representatives, and has access to intelligence, we can assume his is an informed opinion. As Coakley does not receive such national security intelligence; hers is an ignorant opinion. But, recall, the liberal extremists who think President Obama was right about Iraq conceded he didn't receive the intelligence that Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Daschle, Edwards and Kerry received as Obama expressed his opinion while serving in the Illinois State Senate.

In a recent interview, Rep. Capuano not only advocated withdrawal, he did so because he thinks President Bush was successful in eradicating al Qaeda from Afghanistan:

"Very simply: We've accomplished our mission in Afghanistan. We went there to get al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan and I believe that if we switch the mission now we will be doing nothing but beginning to get ourselves in the morass that we've tried to avoid since Vietnam. We should come home." - Rep. Michael Capuano.

That he is informed is validated by President Obama's National Security Adviser, Gen. James Jones, who said in early October, "The al Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country (Afghanistan), no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

Next Tuesday, not only is President Obama not expected to announce a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, he is expected to announce a further escalation of the war, over and above the additional 21,000 troops he ordered to Afghanistan in March.

The only major candidate in the MA Senate race who is prepared to support President Obama's decision is State Senator Scott Brown (R).

Before this special election is over, my "news"paper, the liberally-extreme Boston Globe, will endorse a candidate for the United States Senate who will work to undermine a wartime Commander-in-Chief. Think about that.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

More from the Intellectually-Bankrupt

As regular readers of this space know, I occasionally get a chance to exchange emails with a "columnist" from a major national “news”paper. I’ve included those exchanges a few times here so my readers can see how intellectually bankrupt at least one liberal extremist is.

Here is the latest exchange related to an email I sent some friends this morning which was related to my post from this morning; I copied the certain columnist (I’m the odd-numbered entries, the intellectually-bankrupt liberal extremist is the even-numbered entries):

1. Friends,

My list of over 50 significant Obushma reassertions of Bush grew by one this week with the land mine reassertion. If someone wants my complete list as the catalyst for a column on someone who is actually in power (as opposed to a former Gov. who the Boston Globe can't seem to stop hating on), please let me know.

Also, the decision apparently having been made, President Obama is willfully going to wait another 1,435 Bush Schoolhouses* before he announces his new, new, Afghanistan strategy. He will wait another 1,435 Bush Schoolhouses beforehe announces if he's going to properly resource the under-resourced troops he ordered into battle on March 27, 2009.

Too funny.

A safe Thanksgiving to all,

Zack

* - A Bush Schoolhouse is equal to 7 minutes. It's how long it took Bush to process "America is under attack" without upsetting a classroom full of second-graders and before he started to take action. This deliberative 7 minutes, filmed by a media that was not banned (see Obama's ban on returning KIA, Palin speaking at Ft. Bragg, the President playing golf while he ditheres, etc.), apparently too long for the kool-aid drinkers and demagogues.

If the President makes a surprise trip to troops on Thursday, I will not count that as a "reassertion". But, I do hope that your "news"paper has the honesty to rip the President a new one for the disgusting and vile photo-op (think Dover) while he dithers.

2. Hating on? Forget the argument, just correct the idiom. It's way to GenXy. Gen Y-ie, even.

3. Intellectually-bankrupt Liberal Extremist,

C'mon, I included that specifically because of you! Some time ago you sent me a link about ex-Bush staffers "hating on" Obama. Man, I was being extremely creative there.

And that's what you choose to comment on?

I'll be the one supporting Obama's decision next week, provided he explains it sufficiently. I'm on record all over the place that if his national security team says we have to stay or escalate that I'd support that.

Will Code Pink or MoveOn.org or any of the other hate-Bushies be as supportive as I will be?After the Ditherer-in-Chief explains himself, I'd be interested to hear if you support the war time President of the United States or if you'll work to undermine him.

Have a safe Thanksgiving,

Zack

4. Oh my. Are you a Notre Dame guy or am I thinking of someone else? I expect more linguistic precision, not sloppy Gen X idiom, from one who has attended such a fine institution.

5. Intellectually-bankrupt Liberal Extremist,

Yes, I'm a Notre Dame grad. Is the anti-Catholic bigotry next?

I love your non-responsive replies as well.

So I better understand, if you please, what's your motivation? It's the day before Thanksgiving and your signaling that I have some value as you're choosing to give me some of your time (unless, of course, I value your time more than you do). So, what's the motivation?

Zack

6. Well, one of my good friends is married to a woman from Notre Dame and I've always been v. impressed by how well-educated, informed, thoughtful, and well-spoken her circle of college friends is. So I was perplexed to see a Notre Dame grad slip into Gen X patois, that's all.

7. Intellectually-bankrupt Liberal Extremist,

Got it.

Actually, the Columbia/Harvard grad exploited the Gen-X lingo so masterfully, I thought I'd give it a shot. I see I have some distance to go to match the Ditherer-in-Chief. Can I count on you to evaluate my future performance relative to the President's Gen-Xing?

Yo.

Zack

8. Likely you can, as I'm against Gen X-isms in most linguistic incarnations. Happy Thanksgiving. (End of exchange at my election.)
Take Out the Trash Week

It looks like President Obama is going to use the Thanksgiving week to dump news that White Houses historically and tactically dump on Fridays.

How about this beauty from the AP this morning, also buried in my "news"paper, the Boston Globe, on page A10:

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration has decided not to sign an international convention banning land mines.

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Tuesday that the administration recently completed a review and decided not to change the Bush-era policy.

"We decided that our land mine policy remains in effect," he said. (End of AP excerpt.)

Monday, November 23, 2009

Obama Will Visit Troops in Iraq or Afghanistan

Given President Obama's atrocious performance so far as Commander-in-Chief, I suspect there will be a surprise visit by the President to our troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan on Thanksgiving (yet ANOTHER reassertion of President Bush).

Maybe there will even be a photo-op with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Obama's hand-picked choice to lead Obama's wilfully under-resourced troops in Afghanistan.
Two Quick Observations

Elsewhere on the web today I made these observations and I thought they might make a decent post here.

First, as we know, President Obama bowed to the pro-terrorist lobby and decided to try fice or six terrorists in a federal courtroom in New York City. Both President Obama and US Attorney General Eric Holder have made comments of their certainty for conviction that people are starting to question if the New York City jury pool has been tainted and whether the jurors will be impartial. As readers here probably know, New York City is home to some of the most extreme liberals in the country. I do share a concern that the jury pool may not be impartial.

Second, I was reminded earlier today that President Bush took an entire seven (7) minutes to digest his Chief of Staff's words that "America is under attack" before he excused himself from a classroom full of second-graders. It got me thinking:

Since President Obama announced his comprehensive strategy change in Afghanistan on March 27, 2009 about 240 DAYS have passed.

Since Obama's hand-picked General has provided the President with his assessment of how many troops would be required to implement Obama's new strategy about 120 DAYS days have passed.

That is, according to Obama's hand-picked general, one hundred twenty (120) days have passed where President Obama has wilfully under-resourced troops he ordered into battle

There are 1,440 minutes in a day (24 hours times 60 minutes in an hour).

Dividing 1,440 by the seven (7) minutes it took Bush to collect his thoughts on what he had to do next while not upsetting a room full of second graders yields 205.

Two hundred five (205) times 120 yields 24,600. That is, President Obama, SO FAR, has taken 24,600 times as long to decide if he's going to give the troops he ordered into battle the help his general says they need that it took President Bush to begin to take action on September 11, 2001.

No doubt President Obama will have a comfortable Thanksgiving; troops he ordered to battle will remain wilfully under-resourced.

Obama's 172,800 minutes and counting or Bush's seven?

It's amazing liberal extremists continue to bring up this hysterical criticism they have of President Bush, but they do, I read it all over again this morning.

Friday, November 20, 2009

What Did the Radical Expect?

My "news"paper published a "news" story two days ago lamenting the problem President Obama is having getting any Republcans to vote for "his" legislation.

The letter the Boston Globe received from me:

Editor,

I did literally howl when I read Ms. Susan Milligan’s piece on how President Obama is incapable of getting any Republican support for his radical domestic legislation (Obama domestic agenda largely a one-party effort, November 17, A27).

For, I’m aware of the massive amount of bi-partisan legislation that President Bush got passed even in the aftermath of the closely contested 2000 Presidential election and the great bitterness and anti-Bush hate the election outcome spawned for so many Democrats.

Because of the 200 word limit on letters, I can comment on only a fraction of the early and significant bi-partisan legislative success of President Bush:

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) passed the Senate 62 - 38, twelve (12) Democrats voting in favor. It passed the House 240 - 154 with 28 Democrats voting to give a tax cut to every single American that paid/pays taxes, to eliminate the marriage penalty, and to eliminate the death tax.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 passed with 16 Democrats voting in support in the House and 11 Democrats voting in support in the Senate.

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in Sub-Saharan African passed the House with 375 “yeas”.

The No Child Left Behind Act, co-written by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA), passed the House 381 - 41 and the Senate 87 - 10.

The vote to Authorize the Use of Force in Iraq was agreed to in the House 296 – 133 and in the Senate 77 - 23 (notable Senate Democrats voting for war were the 2004 Democratic ticket of Kerry and Edwards as well as Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton).

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 passed the House 357 – 66 and the Senate by an eye-popping 98 – 1!

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act passed the Senate with a near veto-proof tally of 64 – 34, seventeen (17) Democrats voting for life. The vote in the House was 281 – 142.

Finally, The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was passed by the Senate 98 – 0 and the House 380-15.

When legislation is not radical, it’s amazing how much bi-partisan support there is. Maybe President Obama should heed the conciliatory tactics of President Bush if he is desirous of passing some bi-partisan legislation. (End of letter noting the early and significant bi-partisan legislation passed by President Bush.)

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Words We Never Hear Anymore

Yes, I know I haven't had a post in a while but family, work, and not being able to be first with show-trial observations have been hurdles.

I'm working on a a decent post for tomorrow or Friday but I need to do some reasearch on House and Senate votes so that's going to take some time to finalize.

In the meantime, I leave you with this thought: Daisy-cutter and MOAB, words we regrettably never hear anymore.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Obama's New Strategy For Afghanistan and Pakistan

Because so many liberal extremists are unaware that President Obama announced a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan earlier this year, I reproduce his prepared remarks on the matter from March 27, 2009 (please note the very first sentence and the very last sentence); also, these are not his exact words as the White House won't allow me to copy and paste the exact words as they appear on its web site but in comparing the text of the 'actual' to the 'prepared', the text below is almost exactly what the President said.

Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama: A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan:

Good morning. Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office. My Administration has heard from our military commanders and diplomats. We have consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments; with our partners and NATO allies; and with other donors and international organizations. And we have also worked closely with members of Congress here at home. Now, I'd like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people.

The situation is increasingly perilous. It has been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghan government have risen steadily. Most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces.

Many people in the United States – and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much – have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? They deserve a straightforward answer.

So let me be clear: al Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda's leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe-haven to hide, train terrorists, communicate with followers, plot attacks, and send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.

But this is not simply an American problem – far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it – too – is likely to have ties to al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.

For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people – especially women and girls. The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence.

As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists.

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.

To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy. To focus on the greatest threat to our people, America must no longer deny resources to Afghanistan because of the war in Iraq. To enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support. And to defeat an enemy that heeds no borders or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan – which is why I've appointed Ambassador Richard Holbrooke to serve as Special Representative for both countries, and to work closely with General David Petraeus to integrate our civilian and military efforts.

Let me start by addressing the way forward in Pakistan.

The United States has great respect for the Pakistani people. They have a rich history, and have struggled against long odds to sustain their democracy. The people of Pakistan want the same things that we want: an end to terror, access to basic services, the opportunity to live their dreams, and the security that can only come with the rule of law. The single greatest threat to that future comes from al Qaeda and their extremist allies, and that is why we must stand together.

The terrorists within Pakistan's borders are not simply enemies of America or Afghanistan – they are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan. Al Qaeda and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They have killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They have blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state. Make no mistake: al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within.

It is important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after al Qaeda. This is no simple task. The tribal regions are vast, rugged, and often ungoverned. That is why we must focus our military assistance on the tools, training and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists. And after years of mixed results, we will not provide a blank check.

Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders. And we will insist that action be taken – one way or another – when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets.

The government's ability to destroy these safe-havens is tied to its own strength and security. To help Pakistan weather the economic crisis, we must continue to work with the IMF, the World Bank and other international partners. To lessen tensions between two nuclear-armed nations that too often teeter on the edge of escalation and confrontation, we must pursue constructive diplomacy with both India and Pakistan. To avoid the mistakes of the past, we must make clear that our relationship with Pakistan is grounded in support for Pakistan's democratic institutions and the Pakistani people. And to demonstrate through deeds as well as words a commitment that is enduring, we must stand for lasting opportunity.

A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al Qaeda offers the people of Pakistan nothing but destruction. We stand for something different. So today, I am calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years – resources that will build schools, roads, and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan's democracy. I'm also calling on Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Maria Cantwell, Chris Van Hollen and Peter Hoekstra that creates opportunity zones in the border region to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued by violence. And we will ask our friends and allies to do their part – including at the donors conference in Tokyo next month.

I do not ask for this support lightly. These are challenging times, and resources are stretched. But the American people must understand that this is a down payment on our own future – because the security of our two countries is shared. Pakistan's government must be a stronger partner in destroying these safe-havens, and we must isolate al Qaeda from the Pakistani people. These steps in Pakistan are also indispensable to our effort in Afghanistan, which will see no end to violence if insurgents move freely back and forth across the border.

Security demands a new sense of shared responsibility. That is why we will launch a standing, trilateral dialogue among the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our nations will meet regularly, with Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates leading our effort. Together, we must enhance intelligence sharing and military cooperation along the border, while addressing issues of common concern like trade, energy, and economic development.

This is just one part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent Afghanistan from becoming the al Qaeda safe-haven that it was before 9/11. To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban's gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.

Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy. Our civilians have made great sacrifices. Our allies have borne a heavy burden. Afghans have suffered and sacrificed for their future. But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq. Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals.

I have already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by General McKiernan for many months. These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan Security Forces and to go after insurgents along the border. This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential election in August.

At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan Security Forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That is how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home.

For three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need for training. Those resources have been denied because of the war in Iraq. Now, that will change. The additional troops that we deployed have already increased our training capacity. Later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan Security Forces. For the first time, this will fully resource our effort to train and support the Afghan Army and Police. Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner. We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan Army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011 – and increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward.

This push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort. Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people. The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency. The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future. Yet once again, have seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty.

To advance security, opportunity, and justice – not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces – we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers. That is how we can help the Afghan government serve its people, and develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs. That is why I am ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. And that is why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations – an effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in the Hague.

At a time of economic crisis, it is tempting to believe that we can short-change this civilian effort. But make no mistake: our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future. That is why my budget includes indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs. These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run – because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility.

As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong Inspector General at both the State Department and USAID, and include robust funding for the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction.

And I want to be clear: we cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. Instead, we will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior, and sets clear benchmarks for international assistance so that it is used to provide for the needs of the Afghan people.

In a country with extreme poverty that has been at war for decades, there will also be no peace without reconciliation among former enemies. I have no illusions that this will be easy. In Iraq, we had success in reaching out to former adversaries to isolate and target al Qaeda. We must pursue a similar process in Afghanistan, while understanding that it is a very different country.

There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who have taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. That is why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated. And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans – including women and girls.

Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. We'll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan Security Forces, and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan's economy, and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.

None of the steps that I have outlined will be easy, and none should be taken by America alone. The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or al Qaeda operates unchecked. We have a shared responsibility to act – not because we seek to project power for its own sake, but because our own peace and security depends upon it. And what's at stake now is not just our own security – it is the very idea that free nations can come together on behalf of our common security. That was the founding cause of NATO six decades ago. That must be our common purpose today.

My Administration is committed to strengthening international organizations and collective action, and that will be my message next week in Europe. As America does more, we will ask others to join us in doing their part. From our partners and NATO allies, we seek not simply troops, but rather clearly defined capabilities: supporting the Afghan elections, training Afghan Security Forces, and a greater civilian commitment to the Afghan people. For the United Nations, we seek greater progress for its mandate to coordinate international action and assistance, and to strengthen Afghan institutions.

And finally, together with the United Nations, we will forge a new Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the security of the region – our NATO allies and other partners, but also the Central Asian states, the Gulf nations and Iran; Russia, India and China. None of these nations benefit from a base for al Qaeda terrorists, and a region that descends into chaos. All have a stake in the promise of lasting peace and security and development.

That is true, above all, for the coalition that has fought together in Afghanistan, side by side with Afghans. The sacrifices have been enormous. Nearly 700 Americans have lost their lives. Troops from over twenty other countries have also paid the ultimate price. All Americans honor the service and cherish the friendship of those who have fought, and worked, and bled by our side. And all Americans are awed by the service of our own men and women in uniform, who have borne a burden as great as any other generation's. They and their families embody the example of selfless sacrifice.

The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives. Al Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries. Most of the blood on their hands is the blood of Muslims, who al Qaeda has killed and maimed in far greater numbers than any other people. That is the future that al Qaeda is offering to the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan – a future without opportunity or hope; a future without justice or peace.

The road ahead will be long. There will be difficult days. But we will seek lasting partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that serve the promise of a new day for their people. And we will use all elements of our national power to defeat al Qaeda, and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future. Because the United States of America stands for peace and security, justice and opportunity. That is who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more.

Thank you, God Bless You, and God Bless the United States of America. (End of President Obama's prepared remarks on his new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.)

Monday, November 09, 2009

Boston Globe's Unintended Use of Irony

In order to get the punchline, you must click on the link and read the asinine column by Mr. Steve Almond.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/11/09/whos_afraid_of_the_big_bad_fairness_doctrine/

Just to separate the punchline from the link by a few spaces I'm going to type this run-on sentence as I wouldn't want the reader to accidently see the punchline before they've had a chance to click on the link and read the asinine column by Mr. Steve Almond.

Are you ready for the punchline?

(Just another filler row.)

On May 12, 2006, Mr. Steve Almond, in an open letter to the President of Boston College, that was published in the Boston Globe, resigned his post as an adjunct professor of English at Boston College to protest Dr. Condoleezza Rice being invited to speak at Boston College.

For those who read the link, I know you're on the floor right now laughing. While those on the floor try to regain some control, I'll let the rest of the readers who did not go to the link know that the link is to a column written by Mr. Almond that appeared in today's Boston Globe; the column promotes the Fairness Doctrine, you know, the liberal jive about "balanced" debate.

. . . and now those who didn't read the link join those who did on the floor . . .

Saturday, November 07, 2009

Ramifications of Obama's Ban on Media

First, I know I suggested I'd do a post on my take on the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections but I think everything that can be written on how they were an extraordinary repudiation of President Obama has been written by others; I just don't think I would have had anything original on the topic.

One topic I did spend a lot of time with over the last few days is President Obama's ban on the media covering the return to Dover Air Base of coffins of KIA if the family of the KIA does not waive the President's ban on the media.

It seems there is great misunderstanding by the liberal extremists who guzzle the President's kool-aid. These "drunks" think Obama does not ban the media.

Below is one of the pictures of President Obama "honoring" the remains of a soldier killed in Afghanistan. This picture was shot last week in a carefully choreographed photo-stunt by the White House.

As most everyone who would read this blog knows, President Obama flew to Dover in the "pre-dawn hours" to pay his respects. What many people may not know is that there were a total of 18 coffins on the plane the President went to greet; the coffins of 15 US servicemen and 3 DEA agents.

Fourteen families of the US servicemen denied media access. Fourteen families denied the media.

President Obama is photographed with the coffin of the remains of the only US troop whose family did not ban the media.

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Ditherer-in-Chief Continues to Dither III

I'm not kidding, this was the lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal today. I know, to many of you it sounds like stuff you've been reading here for months.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511683136001624.html#
Ditherer-in-Chief Continues to Dither II

As troops the Ditherer-in-Chief ordered into combat in March continue to be under-resourced by the Ditherer-in-Chief, voters in the states of New Jersey and Virginia go to the polls today to elect Governors.

To avoid the cynics, I suspect the Ditherer-in-Chief to make a decision on properly resourcing the troops he sent into battle some time later this week but definitely not today while voters in New Jersey and Virginia might notice and definitely not tomorrow as it's just to close to the elections. What's another day of no help to the woman and men actually in the fight today, after all?

But, make no mistake, the Governor's races in at least Virginia is a referendum on the President despite what Obama and his cheerleaders in the liberal media say.

Contrast this referendum with the lies we were told during the 2006 mid-terms which I properly diagnosed at the time as not referendums (for those who do not recall, Maj. Tammy Duckworth would have been elected and Rep. Jean Schmidt would not have been re-elected if they were referendums).

More on election day tomorrow.