Category Archives: war

Ten Questions for the White House

Bill Kristol at The Weekly Standard asks Ten Questions for the White House

All good questions. And it pretty much goes without saying that the DeMSM would be camped out on every Republican office-holder’s doorstep if this incident had occurred under a Republican administration.

Aren’t there any “reporters” at all the media outlets besides Fox News who are embarrassed to so completely fail at just doing their jobs? Are they so blatantly partisan that their bias completely overcomes the most basic professionalism? Obviously, at this point these are entirely rhetorical questions.

Paul Krugman and the Flag Burners

There’s been a good amount of reaction to the blog post put up by Paul Krugman at the NY Times today. There’s been less reaction to the story that’s linked below Krugman’s on memorandum as I write:

A group of Muslim protesters set fire to an American flag outside the US embassy in London during a minute’s silence to mark the moment that the first hijacked airliner hit the World Trade Center 10 years ago.

You expect some Muslims fanatics to burn a US flag somewhere on any given day. You expect some irrational, angry leftist like Paul Krugman to post some irrational, angry bile on a day like today. So we don’t get particularly shocked or outraged by either event.

We tend to agree with William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:

That’s how they feel, so in a sense I’m glad Krugman gave voice to it on this day. They can’t stand the fact that the attacks on 9/11 proved that their world view was wrong, and every mention of 9/11 is like a thorn in their political sides.

Clarity about how leftists like Krugman think and what they believe about America is important, especially important as we approach an election year. We should encourage them to be as open and honest about their real views as possible.

Update: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air isn’t outraged either:

It’s nothing Krugman wouldn’t say (and probably does say) the other 364 days out of the year, and Krugman says it in pretty much the same vacuous manner of the everyday sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome. After reading this, you seriously have to remind yourself that the New York Times pays Krugman to write it; this wouldn’t even pass muster for a Letter to the Editor at most newspapers. It’s so trite, sad, and cliched that it’s hardly worth the effort to rebut. He’s mailing this in from 2003. It’s as if Krugman hasn’t bothered to think about 9/11 in the past ten years at all, which says a lot more about Krugman than it does about 9/11.

Another conficting account from Osama bin Ladin SEAL raid

From the Associated Press today:

“The decision to launch on that particular moonless night in May came largely because too many American officials had been briefed on the plan. U.S. officials feared if it leaked to the press, bin Laden would disappear for another decade.”

From President Obama’s appearance on 60 Minutes on Sunday, May 8th:

KROFT: Did you have to suppress the urge to tell someone? Did you wanna tell somebody? Did you wanna tell Michelle? Did you tell Michelle?

OBAMA: You know, one of the great successes of this operation was that we were able to keep this thing secret. And it’s a testimony to how seriously everybody took this operation and the understanding that any leak could end up not only compromising the mission, but killing some of the guys that we were sending in there.

And so very few people in the White House knew. The vast majority of my most senior aides did not know that we were doing this. And, you know, there were times where you wanted to go around and talk this through with some more folks. And that just wasn’t an option.

Last Sunday, as the final preparations for the raid were underway, President Obama continued with his charade of “business as usual.” Most people in the White House, including some of his closest aides, had no idea what was about to happen. To break the tension and to clear his head, he played some golf in the morning, waiting for the sun to go down in Pakistan.

Then he returned to the White House for the most critical 40 minutes of his presidency. In mid-afternoon, he gathered the architects of the mission in a windowless room in the White House basement to watch it all unfold.

So which is it? Did the mission get pushed up because too many people knew? Or did the administration demonstrate great skill and success keeping it under wraps, with just a few key people knowing about it at all?

We can guess which story is more likely to be true based on the fact that the AP story is based accounts from “officials [who] spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a classified operation.” The AP doesn’t make clear who these “officials” are – they could be at the White House, in Congress, at the Pentagon, the CIA… “classified” is evidently defined by some as “you can talk about it all you want, just don’t put your name on it.”

Michael Mukasey on the “Christmas Day bomber”

Michael Mukasey has a good article today in the Washington Post on the Obama administration’s handling of the “Christmas Day bomber”, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, debunking many of the disingenuous talking points coming from the administration..

Contrary to what the White House homeland security adviser and the attorney general have suggested, if not said outright, not only was there no authority or policy in place under the Bush administration requiring that all those detained in the United States be treated as criminal defendants, but relevant authority was and is the opposite. …

Perhaps the most dishonest, but most repeated, of the Democrats’ talking points is the comparison to Richard Reid. Mukasey quickly debunks it:

What of Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber,” who was warned of his Miranda rights and prosecuted in a civilian court? He was arrested in December 2001, before procedures were put in place that would have allowed for an outcome that might have included not only conviction but also exploitation of his intelligence value, if possible. His case does not recommend the same procedure in Abdulmutallab’s.

It’s especially shameless for all these Democrats to use the actions of the Bush administration as the standard in defending their own policies, after spending the last eight years demonizing every move made by the Bush administration.

Colin Powell endorses Obama

Colin Powell has for a long time struck us as a mushy moderate, David Gergen type, and not much of a deep thinker on most issues, way too concerned about what the “world community” (i.e. pacifist, welfare statist Europe) thinks, and his comments today did nothing to change that assessment. We won’t dwell on his endorsement of Obama, which is really not a surprise at all.

First, a bit of positive – in Powell’s area of expertise, which is military matters, he remains stalwart on the liberation of Iraq, to his credit:

I’m well aware of the role I played. My role has been very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war. The president agreed with me. We tried to do that. We couldn’t get it through the U.N. and when the president made the decision, I supported that decision. And I’ve never blinked from that. I’ve never said I didn’t support a decision to go to war.

And the war looked great until the 9th of April, when the statue fell, everybody thought it was terrific. And it was terrific. The troops had done a great job. But then we failed to understand that the war really was not over, that a new phase of the war was beginning. And we weren’t ready for it and we didn’t respond to it well enough, and things went very, very — very, very south, very bad.

And now it’s starting to turn around through the work of Gen. Petraeus and the troops, through the work of the Iraqi government, through our diplomatic efforts, and I hope now that this war will be brought to an end, at least as far as American involvement is concerned, and the Iraqis are going to have to be responsible for their own security and for their own political future. …

How Powell squares that view with Obama’s opposition to the successful surge, and his desire to pull out regardless of conditions on the ground, Powell didn’t say.

But when you get outside of national security matters, Powell seems to understand things less than, say, Joe the plumber:

Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who paid them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there is nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less. And for us to say that that makes you a socialist, I think is an unfortunate characterization that isn’t accurate.

Of course taxes are necessary, and of course John McCain has never said nor implied otherwise. But to suggest that “all taxation is redistribution” is just asinine. It should be obvious to anyone, even to Colin Powell, that paying to build a road in no way compares to Obama’s plan to take money away from some Americans to send unearned checks to other Americans (for the purpose of buying their votes).

(It would have been nice to hear a good follow-up question for Powell, to ask him how much “the rich” now pay, in order to gauge his understanding of the issue. Answer: “The rich”, i.e. the top 5% of earners in America, pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. It would be really nice if someone asked Barack Obama or Joe Biden, or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid for that matter, that question. But which reporter would want to put their guys on the spot?)

And to focus on people like Mr. Ayers and these trivial issues, for the purpose of suggesting that somehow Mr. Obama would have some kind of terrorist inclinations, I thought that was over the top.

….

And to sort of throw in this little Muslim connection, you know, “He’s a Muslim and, my goodness, he’s a terrorist” — it was taking root. And we can’t judge our people and we can’t hold our elections on that kind of basis.

But no one in the McCain campaign, certainly not John McCain or Sarah Palin, has said nor implied that Obama is a terrorist or has terrorist inclinations, or that he’s a Muslim. Barack Obama has a long and consistent pattern of allying himself with far left, radical individuals and groups. Of course that’s relevant to the campaign. Of course the DeMSM would be all over it, non-stop, if John McCain had similar associations with any far-right equivalents of Ayers, Wright, Khalidi, etc.

And notice that Powell didn’t show any discomfort with all the “negativity” coming from the Obama campaign and his allies in the press. In what moral universe is it worse to point out Obama’s ties to a parade of radicals, which are true, than to compare John McCain to George Wallace, which is nothing but a despicable slander of the lowest kind? And how in the world does Powell think Obama is going to bring Americans together again by accusing anyone of racism who dares to criticize him?

Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Clinton, McCain-Palin: neocon holy warriors all?

Here is a great video in rebuttal to one of the many mischaracterizations of Sarah Palin that have gained traction in the DeMSM effort to discredit her. According to the narrative from the left, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and Bill Clinton must all be extremist neocon theocrats akin to the Taliban.

The repeated attempts by the radical secularist left to try to airbrush our Judeo-Christian foundations from American culture and history don’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. On the other hand, as we’ve noted for years, liberals don’t object to bringing religion into politics at all if it’s used to further a left-wing agenda.

Obama-Biden on 60 Minutes

Barack Obama and Joe Biden appeared together on CBS’ 60 Minutes Sunday evening. Steve Kroft was as tough yet objective as you’d expect from CBS News:

“Does the fact that he [McCain] chose as his vice president someone what has less experience than you take that weapon out of his arsenal?” Kroft asked.

Whether Palin has less experience is at the very least a debatable point. Way to keep it objective, Kroft.

“Let me tell you the reason I picked Joe Biden. Number one, he can step in and become president. And I don’t think anybody has any doubt about that,” Obama said.

Really? No doubt from anybody? Got any polling data to back that up, Senator Obama?

“Number two is that if I’m in the room making the kinds of tough decisions that the next president’s gonna have to make, both on domestic policy and on international policy, then I want the counsel and advice of somebody who’s not gonna agree with me a 100 percent of [the] time. In fact, somebody who’s independent enough that can push back and give me different perspectives and make sure that I’m catching any blind spots that I have. And Joe Biden doesn’t bite his tongue,” he continued.

Perhaps some sage advice like suggesting we send a $200 million check to the terror-sponsoring state if Iran?

“You’ve had some differences over pretty substantial issues. Iraq for one,” Kroft pointed out.

“Actually, we haven’t,” Biden said. “Look, Barack was right. He not only got it right about bein’ against the war, I got it wrong about underestimating the incompetence of this administration when we gave the president the power we gave him at the time. He knew accurately that even, not even being outside. Maybe it gave you a better perspective. That that meant he was going to war. Bush told me he wasn’t going to war. I thought they meant it. You’re standing outside. You knew they didn’t mean it.”

What a load of phony, disingenuous nonsense. Joe Biden voted for the “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq”. Biden said in 2002:

“He’s [Saddam Hussein] a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

But now he says he voted for the authorization to use force because he thought we would not use force to eliminate the threat he said we had “no choice but to eliminate” in 2002? What?!? For Democrats, Serious Foreign Policy Wisdom means a stream of head-spinning, incoherent blather to avoid your actual record, apparently.

Biden, like his running mate Barack Obama, is clearly counting on the mainstream press not to check his record. Maybe Biden should step aside before he becomes the Admiral Stockdale of 2008.

Update: Did Biden – Wise, Long-Experienced, Foreign Policy Expert – really say we will simply have to stand by and accept a nuclear-armed Iran?

Joe Biden – Chickenhawk Warmonger…

… merely applying the standard the left applies to Vice President Cheney. The AP reports on Joe Biden’s evasion of the draft during the Vietnam war:

Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden received five student draft deferments during the Vietnam War, the same number of deferments received by Vice President Dick Cheney, and later was disqualified from service because of asthma as a teenager.

….

“As a result of a physical exam on April 5, 1968, Joe Biden was classified 1-Y and disqualified from service because of asthma as a teenager,” said David Wade, a campaign spokesman.

In “Promises to Keep,” a memoir that was published last year and became an instant best-seller after he was tapped as Obama’s running mate, Biden never mentions his asthma, recounting an active childhood, work as a lifeguard and football exploits in high school.

We’re sure all the kook-left bloggers who went after Cheney because he avoided the draft will show equal outrage at Biden, who incidentally voted for the war in Iraq, since we learned in 2004 how vitally important Vietnam service is to Democratic “anti-war” activists.

Democratic Cowboy Chickenhawk War-mongers

Good point from Ralph Peters:

AM I the only one who’s noticed the silence? Mere months ago, left-wing bloggers and demonstrators were wailing Support our troops, bring them home! seven days a week.

Now their presidential candidate has announced that he won’t bring all those troops home, but will simply transfer combat forces from Iraq to Afghanistan – expanding that war. (He’s discussed possibly invading Pakistan, too.)

And the left’s quiet as a graveyard at midnight.

Where are the outraged protests from MoveOn or the DailyKos? I thought the extreme left felt sorry for our service members in harm’s way and wanted to reunite them with their families.

What happened?

We all know exactly what happened. The left has nothing against foreign wars (as long as they don’t have to fight in person). They just want to pick our wars themselves.

The problem with Iraq wasn’t that America toppled Saddam Hussein, but that George W. Bush did it. I’ve been saying it for years: Had Bill Clinton done the job, the left would’ve celebrated him as the greatest liberator since Abraham Lincoln.

Judgment: Obama, Democrats were completely wrong on the surge in Iraq

Via The Corner at NRO, Vets for Freedom announces a new ad:

(Washington, DC) “” This morning, Vets for Freedom released its second television advertisement as part of the national “Four Months, For Victory” media and grassroots campaign. The ad””entitled “Some in Washington”””highlights the success of the Surge, and exposes detractors of the policy””namely Senators Harry Reid (D-NV), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Chuck Hagel (R-NE).

CLICK HERE to view the ad.

The ad is part of Vets for Freedom’s current multi-million dollar ad buy, and will air in multiple markets in Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and select cable markets for the next ten days.

“It’s incredibly important that the American people not only know that the surge has been successful, but also that certain policy makers””from both sides of the aisle””opposed that policy and have been wedded to a narrative of failure since then.” says Iraq war veteran and Vets for Freedom Chairman Pete Hegseth. “This ad is intended to shake the trees and determine who truly supports victory and success in Iraq, and who is unwilling to admit past policy mistakes and change their stance.”

CLICK HERE for more information about the “Four Months, For Victory” campaign.

The ad is simple, direct, powerful. Check it out.