Image by radiospike photography via Flickr

Observe the strategy used by the left to silence the questions about Obama’s relationships with so many dangerous people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30TFDYBQKus

Click Here

“Obama’s self-deprecation was his most charming bit, but lately he is, well, less charming. He and his wife seem more like a finger-wagging principal and teacher tag team, with Michelle Obama promising that her husband will make us work harder when he becomes president. You get the feeling that should the Obamas take over, we’ll all be staying after school. They used to call that detention.” —Kathleen Parker

“To say you’re going to get out on a certain schedule—regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground—is the height of absurdity.” —Michael O’Hanlon, Democrat foreign policy analyst at the liberal Brookings Institute
“Barack Obama departs for Iraq… with a media entourage as large as some of his rallies. He’ll no doubt learn a lot, in addition to getting a good photo op. What we’ll be waiting to hear is whether the would-be Commander in Chief absorbs enough to admit he was wrong about the troop surge in Iraq. Mr. Obama has made a central basis of his candidacy the ‘judgment’ he showed in opposing the Iraq war in 2002, even if it was a risk-free position to take as an Illinois state senator. The claim helped him win the Democratic primaries. But the 2007 surge debate is the single most important strategic judgment he has had to make on the more serious stage as a Presidential candidate. He vocally opposed the surge, and events have since vindicated President Bush. Without the surge and a new counterinsurgency strategy, the U.S. would have suffered a humiliating defeat in Iraq. Yet Mr. Obama now wants to ignore that judgment, and [recently] his campaign erased from its Web site all traces of his surge opposition. Lest media amnesia set in, here is what the Obama site previously said: ’The problem—the Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq’s political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq’s civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq’s political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.’ Mr. Obama’s site now puts a considerably brighter gloss on the surge. Yet the candidate himself shows no signs of rethinking.” —The Wall Street Journal

“In reality there is perhaps no one of our natural Passions so hard to subdue as Pride.” —Benjamin Franklin
THE DEMO-GOGUES

From the Barackapalooza Files: “The objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki… or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to ten years.” —Barack Obama **“I don’t think Obama really thinks he’s going to be president for ten years unless he plans on getting rid of the Twenty-Second Amendment. Well, I guess if you’re The Messiah, anything is potentially possible.” —Rush Limbaugh

“There is security progress [in Iraq], but now we need a political solution.” —Barack Obama in Iraq **“[Barack Obama will] be able to have the opportunity to see the success of the surge. It is a success. This is the same strategy that he voted against, railed against… He should admit he was wrong about the surge.” —John McCain

“Barack Obama is [on] a trip to visit Iraq and several other Middle East countries. Obama says he is excited about the trip, mainly because he’s looking forward to meeting other people named Barack Obama.” —Conan O’Brien

“For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is? We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more.” —Charles Krauthammer

“Obama’s record is like floor wax: all shine and no depth.” —Cal Thomas

“The press has been endlessly dazzled with the prowess and the promise of the Barack Obama campaign. Observers of these quivering scribes have to wonder if they don’t collapse from exhaustion at the end of the day from all the involuntary spine tingling and shortness of breath over Obama’s inspirational aura.” —Brent Bozell

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recommended oil drilling in already-explored Alaska leaseholds Tuesday. She won’t yield on offshore or wildlife preserves. The Democrats are not opposed to drilling, they are just opposed to drilling in areas that have oil.” —Argus Hamilton

“Conservation, efficiency and using oil we hold in reserve for emergencies does not get us more energy. It’s as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: ‘Just eat a little less every day.’ Great! We’ll die a little more slowly. That’s not what we call a ‘plan.’ We need more energy, not a plan for a slower death.” —Ann Coulter

Jay Leno: Barack Obama is very popular in the Middle East. I guess a lot of people over there saw the cover of The New Yorker. This is Barack’s third day in the Middle East. And President Bush said that he has no timetable for bringing him back home. … You know, sometimes when President Bush speaks, he does not use the best choice of words. You know? Like, today, he said the financial institutions are basically sound, and you can take that to the bank. … John McCain called a press conference today. Unfortunately, all the press was out of the country covering Obama. … Barack Obama is in Afghanistan. Bill Clinton went with him. At least that’s what he told Hillary. … The feds say federal institutions are in trouble for giving money to those already in debt. That’s the problem. They gave money to those already in debt. So, why are we paying taxes? Who’s more in debt than the government? What, are they $9 trillion in debt? We’re giving them more money? We’re enablers. We need to stop this.

*PUBLIUS*

The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US) is protected speech pursuant to the “inalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

In God we trust.

2008 © Publius Press, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

Obama, the national security neophyte

By Mark Alexander

This week, Iranian Islamist Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad tested his new ballistic missile, the Shahab-3—range 1,250 miles. Next door in Iraq, 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” uranium ore, which Saddam intended to weaponize for use in his non-existent WMD program, were removed from Tuwaitha. (That’s enough for more than 100 medium-sized nuclear boomers.) And while al-Qa’ida has been routed in Iraq, there was plenty of evidence this week that jihadis are putting up fierce resistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Seems like this is as good a week as any to pause and ponder, “Who should be our next commander in chief?”

The most important constitutional role of our president is that of commander in chief—which is why every Patriot, every American, every human on the planet, should be deeply concerned about the prospect of a “President Obama.”

If Barack Hussein Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, persuades voters that he is a “centrist candidate” and parlays that deception into defeating John McCain, there will be plenty of “change” in the coming years—unpleasant at best and catastrophic at worst.

Arguably, since our nation’s founding, no candidate has been less qualified than Obama to be his political party’s nominee for president of the United States. And nowhere is Obama more ill prepared than in matters of national security.

Obama responded to Iran’s missile tests this week, saying, “Now is the time to work with our friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions. It’s time to offer the Iranians a clear choice between increased costs for continuing their troubling behavior, and concrete incentives that would come if they change course.”

“Incentives”? Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad has vowed to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust. How about this incentive—a paraphrase from JFK during the Cuban missile debacle: “It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any missile launched from Iran against any ally of the United States as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.”

Further, Obama insists, “I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.”

Come again? A quick fact check and one finds that Franklin Roosevelt did not hold direct talks with Adolf Hitler or Hideki Tojo. Harry Truman’s “pre-conditions” for peace negotiations with Japan were two atomic bombs, and Truman didn’t talk with North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung after his invasion of South Korea in 1950. Instead, he sent troops, and we are still there, as we are in Japan and Germany. As for John Kennedy, he did meet with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1961. But Khrushchev knew, after Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs fiasco, that he could outflank Kennedy.

Elie Abel, who authored The Missile Crisis, the definitive text on Russia’s placement of long-range nukes in Cuba, said, “How close we came to Armageddon I did not fully realize until I started researching this book.” In it, he wrote, “There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy’s measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions. There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America’s power. He questioned only the president’s readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are ‘too liberal to fight’.”

When Obama was asked if he would meet with North Korea’s Kim Jong-il, without preconditions, he responded, “I think it’s a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.”

Well heck, Ted Turner went to North Korea and did some negotiating. Perhaps Obama plans to appoint Turner’s ex, “Hanoi” Jane Fonda, his ambassador there.

Talk aside, we have boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Obama’s abject nescience is readily apparent.

“Let me be as clear as I can be,” says Obama. “I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war—responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.”

The only way to end a war “responsibly, deliberately and decisively” is victory.

On retreat from Iraq, Obama says, “What’s important is to understand the difference between strategy and tactics… I am not somebody—unlike George Bush—who is willing to ignore facts on the basis of my preconceived notions.”

I have been through 16 national-security programs for senior tacticians and strategists, and I do not recall ever coming across any alumni reference to “Barack Obama.” I would suggest that Obama take a short course on The Long War.

Of course, Obama announced this week that he plans to visit Iraq for a “fact-finding mission,” in order to make “a thorough assessment” [Read: “Change my policy”]. Here is a fact he might consider: Attacks in Iraq are down more than 90 percent over the previous year.

Regarding al-Qa’ida strongholds in Afghanistan or Pakistan, Obama says, “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance.” Rule number one—NEVER take any option off the table, EVER.

Most stupefyingly, Obama has pledged to revitalize the Clinton Doctrine for dealing with terrorists—treat terrorism as a criminal matter.

In regard to Obama’s plan for overall military preparedness, it just gets worse.

“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.” This year, both our sea-based SM-3 and ground-based midcourse defense system missiles proved to be successful. The U.S. Bureau of Arms Control concluded in May, “The ballistic missile danger to the US, its forces deployed abroad, and allies and friends is real and growing.” (See Obama’s pledge to abolish missile defense).

“I will not weaponize space.” Memo to Senator Obama: Our current policy is not to weaponize space.

“I will slow our development of future combat systems…” The average service age of our frontline fighter aircraft is 23 years. The Army’s Future Combat Systems is the first full-spectrum modernization effort since the 1960s. Of course, the Marines, who are still using some hardware from long-ago wars, have always improvised, adapted and overcome.

“I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons… I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”

Well, I’m all for no nuclear weapons. However, until the other guys are willing to give up their 4,162 nukes, we had best maintain a deterrence strategy, and since most nuclear weapon components have a shelf life, we must continue to update our weapons for them to be functional. And what’s this nonsense about U.S. nuclear forces being on “hair-trigger alert”? Apparently, Candidate Obama has been watching reruns of “Dr. Strangelove.”

In his first annual address, President George Washington declared, “To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” Apparently, Obama, and the rest of his far-Left cadre, missed that memo.

In 1994, Ronald Reagan observed, “The Democrats may remember their lines, but how quickly they forget the lessons of the past. I have witnessed five major wars in my lifetime, and I know how swiftly storm clouds can gather on a peaceful horizon… In the end, it all comes down to leadership, and that is what this country is looking for now.”

Indeed, it is.

Quote of the week

“The disconnect between what Democrats are saying about Iraq and what is actually happening there has reached grotesque proportions. Democrats won an exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when conditions in Iraq were dire and we were indeed losing the war. Two years later, when everything is changed, they continue to reflexively repeat their ‘narrative of defeat and retreat’ (as Joe Lieberman so memorably called it) as if nothing has changed… Obama and the Democrats would forfeit every one of these successes to a declared policy of fixed and unconditional withdrawal. If McCain cannot take to the American people the case for the folly of that policy, he will not be president. Nor should he be.” —Charles Krauthammer

On cross-examination

“[W]hen I hear people say let’s bring the troops home and end the war…it’s not going to end the war. I think it’s going to give you a war of significantly increased proportions. I remember how we reacted to Rwanda. How could we have let that happen? Why didn’t we step in? Why didn’t we get the international community engaged? Well, you know, what if you have a humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq and it’s not a question of why didn’t we step in, it’s we stepped out. How is that going to affect people?” —Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq

The BIG lie

To review all the BIG lies on Iraq, revisit Alexander’s essay Demo-gogue traitors.

Let us know what you think: Click here to comment on this section

“The Patriot Post (PatriotPost.US)”. (For questions, contact our legal department at: Legal@contact.PatriotPost.US)