Obama Turning The Corner On The Gulf Oil Spill?

After all the rhetoric Obama and his cronies spewed last week, they apparently seem to think the crisis is over since their attention is no longer focused on the spill.

According to Michael D. Shear of the Washington Post:

Has the president turned the corner on the oil drilling crisis? This week's schedule for President Obama suggests that the White House believes he has. After dominating the conversation in Washington all last week, the environmental crisis in the Gulf of Mexico does not appear front and center on the White House calendar. Not that the West Wing can afford to take their eye off the ball, as chief of staff Rahm Emanuel acknowledged yesterday during a rare Sunday morning television appearance. "What's important is, are we capping the well?," he told ABC's Jake Tapper on the network's "This Week" program. "Are we capturing the oil? Are we containing the clean-up? Are we filing the claims? Are we also cleaning up the mess? That's what's important." But the administration is clearly expecting -- maybe hoping -- that the intense public attention on the spill fades a bit, starting with this week, giving them a chance to turn to other subjects.

Wait a minute! We are entering Summer vacation time and a large segment of America's vacation region is being threatened by a massive oil spill and the White House actually believes that our attention can be directed elsewhere? This is just another attempt by Obama to cover-up his own incompetence at handling the situation.

Here is what Obama has planned as a diversion:

For the rest of the week, Obama and his aides hope they can focus on Afghanistan, health insurance reform, relations with Russia (whose president arrives for a visit on Thursday) and the global economy. Obama departs Thursday for Canada for the G-20 gathering of the world's largest economies. Ahead of the meeting, the president warned the group last week that members must redouble their prior commitments or risk allowing the global economy to sink once again. Tuesday's meeting with state health care commissioners is another chance for Obama to remind the public of the benefits he predicts will come from the massive overhaul of the nation's health-care system. And Tuesday night's White House celebration of gay and lesbian pride month should be an upbeat event for Obama. That constituency -- which has been angry about the slow pace of some changes -- is likely to be happier at this year's version of the annual event, as Congress is on the verge of ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Yes! God forbid that the worst environmental disaster in the Gulf take any time away from pandering to the radical agenda of gays and lesbians! Clearly listening to the complaints of the gay community is more important than solving the problem that is putting thousands of people in the Gulf region out of work and destroying the livelihood of thousands more!

Whatever complaints the Dems had about the way George W. Bush handled Katrina, Obama has proven to be at least twice as bad.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Turning The Corner On The Gulf Oil Spill?
Michael D. Shear
Washington Post
June 21, 2010

Obama's Afghan Folly: Talks With The Taliban?

History will look back on these times and identify the key events that shaped the world. One of those events will be the recent announcement by Barack Obama that he intends to talk to the Taliban. Yes, the same Taliban that helped to plan and carry out the September 11, 2001 attacks that killed 2,996 innocent poeple.

Obama made the announcement in an interview with the New York Times this past weekend and already the experts are coming out and saying how foolish such a policy is.

From Reuters:

Obama, in an interview with the New York Times newspaper published on its website on Saturday, expressed an openness to adapting tactics in Afghanistan that had been used in Iraq to reach out to moderate elements there. ... "Obama's comment resemble a dream more than reality," said Waheed Mozhdah, an analyst who has written a book on the Taliban. "Where are the so-called moderate Taliban? Who are the moderate Taliban?" asked Mozhdah, who was an official in both the Taliban and the Karzai governments. ... "'Moderate Taliban' is like 'moderate killer'. Is there such a thing?", asked writer and analyst Qaseem Akhgar.

Apparently, the reality of extremists like the Taliban are completely lost on Obama and his cronies.

Here is a recap of what the Taliban did to the people of Afghanistan:

The Afghan people have been the primary victims of Taliban misrule, since the Taliban came to power in 1996. The Taliban militia was formed in 1994, in response to human rights abuses by other warring factions in Afghanistan. By 1996, the Taliban had captured Kabul, and, with claims to religious as well as political authority, began a reign of terror. The Taliban have made the Afghan people the unwilling hosts of foreign armed terrorists, who have exploited and endangered the Afghan people, and made Afghanistan a pariah in the world community. This fact sheet outlines documented atrocities and human rights abuses committed by the Taliban against the Afghan people. Massacres The Taliban have massacred hundreds of Afghan civilians, including women and children, in Yakaolang, Mazar-I-Sharif, Bamiyan, Qezelabad, and other towns. Many of the victims of these massacres were targeted because of their ethnic or religious identity. Massacre at Yakaolang: January 2001 Taliban forces committed a massacre in Yakaolang in January 2001. The victims were primarily Hazaras. The massacre began on January 8, 2001, and continued for four days. The Taliban detained about 300 civilian adult males, including staff members of local humanitarian organizations. The men were herded to assembly points, and then shot by firing squad in public view. According to Human Rights Watch, about 170 men are confirmed to have been killed. According to Amnesty International, eyewitnesses reported the deliberate killing of dozens of civilians hiding in a mosque: Taliban soldiers fired rockets into a mosque where some 73 women, children and elderly men had taken shelter. Massacre at Robatak Pass: May 2000 The May 2000 massacre took place near the Robatak pass. 31 bodies were found at one site, of these, 26 were positively identified as civilians. The victims were Hazara Shi'as. Massacre in Bamiyan: 1999 When the Taliban recaptured Bamiyan in 1999, there were reports that Taliban forces carried out summary executions upon entering the city. According to Amnesty International, hundreds of men, and some instances women and children, were separated from their families, taken away, and killed. Human Rights Watch reports that besides executing civilians, the Taliban burned homes and used detainees for forced labor. Massacre in the Shomaili Plains: July 1999 Human Rights Watch reports that a Taliban offensive here was marked by summary executions, the abduction and disappearance of women, the burning of homes, destruction of property, and the cutting down of fruit trees. According to a report by the U.N. Secretary General on November 16, 1999, "The Taliban forces, who allegedly carried out these acts, essentially treated the civilian population with hostility and made no distinction between combatants and non-combatants." Massacre in Mazar-I-Sharif: August 1998 In August 1998, the Taliban captured Mazar-I-Sharif. There were reports that between 2,000 and 5,000 men, women and children -- mostly ethnic Hazara civilians -- were massacred by the Taliban after the takeover of Mazar-I-Sharif. During the massacre, the Taliban forces carried out a systematic search for male members for the ethnic Hazara, Tajik, and Uzbek communities in the city. Human Rights Watch estimates that scores, perhaps hundreds, of Hazara men and boys were summarily executed. There were also reports that women and girls were raped and abducted during the Taliban takeover of the city. Massacre in Mazar-I-Sharif: September 1997 Retreating Taliban forces summarily executed Hazara villagers near Mazar-I-Sharif, after having failed to capture the city. Amnesty International reported that the Taliban massacred 70 Hazara civilians, including children, in Qezelabad, near Mazar-I-Sharif. There were also reports that the Taliban forces in Faryab province killed some 600 civilians in late 1997. Other Massacres: On at least two occasions, according to Human Rights Watch, the Taliban killed delegations of Hazara elders who had attempted to intercede with them. Human Rights Abuses Against Women and Girls Taliban rule has been particularly harsh for Afghan women and girls. Taliban restrictions against women and girls are widespread, institutionally sanctioned, and systematic in Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan. -- Girls are formally prohibited from attending school. -- Women are prohibited, with very few exceptions, from working outside the home, and are forbidden to leave their homes except in the company of a male relative. These restrictions are devastating for the thousands of Afghan war widows, who have reportedly been reduced to selling their possessions or begging to feed their families. -- The Taliban have significantly reduced women's access to health care, by decreeing that women can only be treated by women doctors. -- The Taliban threaten and beat women to enforce the Taliban's dress code for women. The Taliban and the Humanitarian Situation The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan is grim. Twenty years of internal armed conflict, and four years of devastating drought have contributed to this situation, but the Taliban have made an already grave situation much worse, holding the Afghan people hostage to their political agenda. -- The Taliban do not share the hardships they have imposed on the Afghan people, and they have done nothing to alleviate these hardships. -- The Taliban have not only failed to provide security, food, and shelter for the Afghan people, but they have disrupted the efforts of international relief agencies to deliver desperately needed food and medical supplies to the Afghan people. -- The Taliban have harassed international and Afghan aid workers. -- On October 16, the Taliban seized control of two UN warehouses, containing more than half the World Food Program's wheat supply for Afghanistan. The UN Security Council on October 16 demanded that the Taliban should cease obstructing aid destined for the Afghan people. The Taliban and Islam The Taliban have imposed their own interpretation of Islam on the Afghan people. -- Taliban interpretations of Islam are not widely shared in the Muslim world. -- Taliban words and actions misrepresent Islam. -- The Taliban have used Islam as a cloak to practice ethnic cleansing in Afghanistan. -- Warning against "converting our countries into another Afghanistan," Saudi writer Turki Al Hamad, writing in As-Sharq Al Awsat, put it this way:"...[under the Taliban], Islam would be relegated from a world religion with a global human and civilized mission to a Taliban-like dogma that bans pigeon breeding, long hair, kite flying, and listening to music.... That, at a time when the rest of the world is de-coding the genome, experimenting with cloning, inventing information chips, exploring outer space and tackling the wonders of laser beams and infra-red radiation. If we want to have an impact on today's world, the only way to do so is by interacting with it." Destruction of Afghan Culture The Taliban have perverted Afghan customs, tradition, and religious practice for their own narrow political interests. -- The Taliban and their foreign armed militant "guests" have set about destroying traditional Afghan culture. -- They have prohibited all forms of music, and even traditional recreation, such as kite flying. -- They have looted and destroyed the historical and cultural patrimony of the Afghan people -- the Kabul Museum, formerly one of the finest museums in the region, is largely empty; the centuries-old Buddhist statues in Bamiyan have been reduced to rubble. -- They have deprived the people of Afghanistan both their history, and their future. Documenting Taliban Abuses -- Several non-government organizations maintain web sites documenting Taliban abuses. -- The web site of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (www.rawa.fancymarketing.net) maintains a gallery of still photos and video clips documenting massacres, beatings, and executions by the Taliban. The documentary photos and videos were clandestinely made by Afghan women to provide evidence of Taliban atrocities. One video clip on this site documents the public execution of an Afghan mother of seven. -- Several human rights organizations maintain web sites documenting human rights abuses by the Taliban and other factions in the Afghan conflict. Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org) and Amnesty International (www.amnesty.org) provide extensive documentation of these abuses.

Exactly how delusional is Barack Obama if he actually believes that such extremists can be rationally negotiated with?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama's Call On Moderate Taliban Useless - Analysts
Sayed Salahuddin
Reuters
March 9, 2009

A Heart-Warming Story To Begin The Holidays: Outnumbered Almost 10 To 1, Marines Make Terrorists Pay Dearly

Here is a story that you will not read in the uber-liberal Washington Post or New York Times. You will also not see it broadcast on NBC, ABC, CBS or CNN as all of these news outlets have made it clear that they will never report on the good news or the victories we are seeing in the War on Terror. These news outlets have also made it clear that they will only report on that which will embolden the enemy.

Thus, it falls to bloggers like me to make sure that stories like this get out to the public and the truth about how we have been winning the War On Terror becomes known.

In the city of Shewan, Afghanistan, 30 United States Marines went up against 250 terrorists and sent the terrorists packing minus a good number who were killed in the battle. No Marines were lost.

From Military.com, Marine Corps News:

Shewan had been a thorn in the side of Task Force 2d Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force Afghanistan throughout the Marines’ deployment here in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, because it controls an important supply route into the Bala Baluk district. Opening the route was key to continuing combat operations in the area. “The day started out with a 10-kilometer patrol with elements mounted and dismounted, so by the time we got to Shewan, we were pretty beat,” said a designated marksman who requested to remain unidentified. “Our vehicles came under a barrage of enemy RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) and machine gun fire. One of our ‘humvees’ was disabled from RPG fire, and the Marines inside dismounted and laid down suppression fire so they could evacuate a Marine who was knocked unconscious from the blast.” The vicious attack that left the humvee destroyed and several of the Marines pinned down in the kill zone sparked an intense eight-hour battle as the platoon desperately fought to recover their comrades. After recovering the Marines trapped in the kill zone, another platoon sergeant personally led numerous attacks on enemy fortified positions while the platoon fought house to house and trench to trench in order to clear through the enemy ambush site. “The biggest thing to take from that day is what Marines can accomplish when they’re given the opportunity to fight,” the sniper said. “A small group of Marines met a numerically superior force and embarrassed them in their own backyard. The insurgents told the townspeople that they were stronger than the Americans, and that day we showed them they were wrong.”

And here is how it all turned out:

After calling for close-air support, the small group of Marines pushed forward and broke the enemies’ spirit as many of them dropped their weapons and fled the battlefield. At the end of the battle, the Marines had reduced an enemy stronghold, killed more than 50 insurgents and wounded several more.

Now, why wouldn't the major news networks report this story? Because it makes America look good and makes us proud of our troops in the field.

All I can say is: "OOH-RAH! GET SOME!"

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Marines Make Insurgents Pay The Price
Cpl. James M. Mercure
Marine Corps News via Military.com
November 18, 2008

The Press And The Obama Trip, John McCain Fires Back And I Will Be On Sirius Radio This Tuesday

Well, I've been away for a little while and have had very little time to post anything. So, let me get caught up on a few things.

First, this Tuesday, July 29, 2008, at 5:30 p.m., I am going to be on Indie Talk, Sirius Radio Channel 110 during the Blog Bunker Show. They liked my blog and invited me to do an interview with them. Actually, I think it is going to be more like a round-table discussion, but I must say I was surprised (and honored) to be invited. Here is what Sirius Indie Talk is about:

Indie Talk, an exclusive, groundbreaking SIRIUS talk radio channel serves as an uncensored forum for nonpartisan independent thought and opinion. Indie Talk has no agenda: the channel gives an equal voice to individuals from any affiliation or background, targets the blogger generation, and is a platform for listeners across the country to react to breaking news, issues and buzz.

A voice for the common person, Joe and Jane Average American! I'd be pretty foolish to pass this up! So, remember: 5:30 p.m. this Tuesday.

Now, on to some recent issues:

B. Hussein Obama's trip to Iraq and Afghanistan has been shrouded in mystery it seems. Even NBC's Andrea Mitchell is questioning the manner in which the members of the press were treated and how the Obama entourage conducted the media coverage of the whole event.

From NewsBusters:

Andrea Mitchell might be a doyenne of the liberal media, but she has her reporter's pride and principles, which have been trampled by the way the Obama campaign has managed the media during the candidate's current trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitchell let loose on this evening's Hardball, speaking of "fake interviews," and decrying that she was unable to report on pertinent aspects of the trip because the media has been excluded and that the video released is unreliable because it's impossible to know what has been edited out.

Here is what she said:

"Let me just say something about the message management. He didn't have reporters with him, he didn't have a press pool, he didn't do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you're seeing is not reporters brought in. You're seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they're not interviews from a journalist. So, there's a real press issue here. Politically it's smart as can be. But we've not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before."

That's pretty scathing coming from a reporter who is known to have a leftist slant. Here's Chris Matthews asking more:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about access to the troops, Andrea. A lot of African-American faces over there, very happy, delighted faces. Is that a representation of the percentage of servicepeople who are African-American, or did they all choose to join someone they like, apparently? What's the story? MITCHELL: I can't really say that. Being a reporter who was not present in any of those situations, I just cannot report on what was edited out, what was, you know, on the sidelines. That's my issue. We don't know what we are seeing.

From Andrea's point of view, this wasn't a fact-finding tour or a visit to get a better understanding of the situation the United States is facing on the world scene. It was nothing more than a dog-and-pony-show photo-op for B. Hussein Obama.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Andrea On Obama Trip: 'What Some Would Call Fake Interviews'
Mark Finkelstein
NewsBusters.org
Junly 21, 2008

---

And speaking of the campaign trail, the liberal bias of Old Media continues to shine through with George Stephanopoulos and his interview with John McCain at McCain's Arizona ranch on Sunday.

Again, from NewsBusters:

On Sunday's This Week, ABC's George Stephanopoulos condemned John McCain for charging that “Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.” Stephanopoulos, who interviewed McCain on Saturday at his Arizona ranch, declared: “I can't believe you believe that.” McCain insisted “I'm not questioning his patriotism. I'm questioning his actions. I'm questioning his lack, total lack of understanding.”

So, according to Stephanopoulos, questioning someone's judgement or their actions is equivalent to questioning their patriotism? That sounds just like the DNC talking points being repeated rather than a legitimate question by a journalist.

Here is the full exchange. Note how George continues to hammer away the DNC talking points:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You've taken heat this week with your comments saying that Senator Obama would rather lose a war than win a political campaign. I can't believe you believe that. JOHN McCAIN: Well, I'm not questioning his patriotism. I'm questioning his actions. I'm questioning his lack, total lack of understanding. STEPHANOPOULOS: But that is questioning his patriotism. When you say someone would rather lose a war, a candidate, that's questioning his honor, his decency, his character. McCAIN: All I'm say something is, and I will repeat, he does not understand. I'm not questioning his patriotism. I am saying that he made the decision which was political in order to help him get the nomination. STEPHANOPOULOS: So putting lives at risk for a political campaign, you believe he's doing that? McCAIN: I believe that when he said that we had to leave Iraq and we had to be out by last March and we had to have a date certain, that was in contravention to and still is to the Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General David Petraeus. When he never asked to sit down for a briefing with General Petraeus, our commander on the ground, when he waited 900 days to go back again where young American lives are on the line, I think that's a fundamental lack of understanding and I think the American people will make the appropriate choices. STEPHANOPOULOS: But you're questioning his motives. McCAIN: I say that it was very clear that a decision had to be made, and I made it when it wasn't popular. He made a decision which was popular with his base, and that is a fundamental difference and he does not understand and did not understand and still doesn't understand that the surge was the vital strategy in us not having to lose a war, chaos, genocide, increased influence of Iranians in the region, the consequences of failure would have been severe. Now the benefits are enormous of a stable ally in the region, of a country that is a friend of ours, a break on Iranian influence, certainly a break on al Qaeda and other jihadist organizations. So he made the decision that that was the best way to go to get the nomination of his party.

It's good to see McCain and the Republicans finally getting some backbone into their messages.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Stephanopoulos To McCain: 'I Can't Believe You Believe That'
Brent Baker
NewsBusters.org
July 28, 2008

---

And according to BlackFive, Senator Obama was colder than an artic wind towards the troops. From an email that came from Afghanistan:

Hello everyone, As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to ' The War Zone ' . I wanted to share with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram. As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand, he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service. So really he was just here to make a showing for the Americans back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you. I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States . I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country. If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake. In service, CPT J Bagram, Afghanistan

And although some are questioning whether or not this email is legitimate, a similar email also came from Afghanistan:

MY MEETING (ALMOST) WITH OBAMA <...> I had a first hand view of Barrack Obama's "fact finding" mission, when he passed through this base. While I can't name it, it's one of the largest air bases in the region, with up to 8000 troops (depending on influxes and transients in mobilization/demobilization status), mostly Airmen and Soldiers, but some Marines, Sailors, Koreans, Japanese, Aussies, Brits, US Civil Service, contractors including KBR, Blackwater and Halliburton, among others in the news. The overwhelming majority of all of these are professional, courteous and disciplined. Problems are rare. Casualties are also rare. This base has a large hospital for evacuation—twenty plus beds. I have yet to see a casualty in one, though I am told there are about three evacuations a week through this region, of which two on average are things like sports injuries, vehicle accidents or duty related falls and such. You can tell from the news that the war is going well. The ghouls are now focusing on Afghanistan, since there is no blood to type with here. This oped is of course subjective and limited, but I will try to present the facts as I saw them. I wasn't able to see much, which makes a point all by itself. When his plane arrived (also containing Senators Reed and Hagel, but the news has hardly mentioned them), there was a "ramp freeze." This means if you are on the flight line, and not directly involved with the event in question, you stay where you are and don't move. For a combat flight arriving or departing, this takes about ten minutes, and involves the active runway and crossing taxiways only. For Obama's flight, this took 90 minutes, during which time a variety of military missions came grinding to a halt. Obviously, this visit was important, right? 95% of base wanted nothing to do with him. I have met three troops who support him, and literally hundreds who regard him as a buffoon, a charlatan, a hindrance to their mission or a flat out enemy of progress. Even when the rumors were publicly admitted, almost no one left their duty sections to try to see him, unless they were officers whose presence was officially required. Mister Obama's motorcade drove up from the flight line and entered the dining hall toward the end of lunch time. Diners were chased out and told to make other arrangements for food, in the middle of the duty day. Now, there are close to 8000 troops on the base and its nearby satellites. No one came up from the Army side (except perhaps a few ranking officers). The airbase resumed operation, once he cleared the flightline, as if nothing had happened. The dining hall holds about 300 people and was not full. The troops did not want to meet him and the feeling was apparently mutual. In attendance, besides the Official Entourage, were the base's senior officers, some support personnel, and a very few carefully vetted supporters who'd made special arrangements. No photos were allowed. No question and answer with the troops. No real acknowledgment that the troops existed. Obama left around 1530, during the Muslim Call to Prayer, so he's not a practicing Muslim. He was in a convoy guarded by (so I'm told) both State Department and Secret Service Personnel. Less than three hours… Within 48 hours he was in Afghanistan. It takes most troops longer than that to in-process and get cleared on safety, threats, policies and such. Yet he somehow made a strategic summary by not talking to anyone and not seeing anything. Twenty-four hours after that, he was in Kuwait, back here, and then home, so fast we didn't even know he arrived the second time at this base. I can't imagine any officer of the few he met told him anything other than what they tell the troops, and what their own leadership at the Pentagon tell them—we're winning. Our troops are stomping the guts out of the insurgency. The surge worked and is working. If the insurgents have to divert to Afghanistan, it means they can't fight in Iraq anymore. We should not change the rules and retreat with the enemy on the ropes as we did in Vietnam. We should finish kicking their teeth in. The Iraqi government now controls 10 of 18 provinces, with US assistance in the rest. Let us win the war. 90% of the troops I know, even those opposed to the war, say that is the way to win. Victory comes from winning, not from "change." In fact, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on record as opposing Obama's strategic theory. Since he obviously knew in advance that's what they'd tell him, and since he didn't care to talk to the troops (we're told by the Left that the troops are horrified, shocked, forced to commit atrocities with tears in their eyes, distraught, burned out, fed up with losing, etc) and find out how they feel, and was barely in country long enough to need a shower and a change of clothes, we can only call this for what it is. A disgraceful PR stunt, using the troops as a platform for his ego and campaign. In comparison, I've seen four star generals and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this base. They each held an all ranks call, met with and briefed the personnel, and took questions on every subject from tour length to uniform design to rules of engagement to weapon choice to long term policy, from the newest airmen to the senior NCO with TEN 120-180 day tours since Sep 11. It's very clear they want to know what the troops think, and to keep them informed of events. It's equally clear mister Obama does not. From here we must move to my op part of the oped. Obama clearly doesn't care about the troops, doesn't care about America, doesn't care about anything except hearing his own voice and the chance to sit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…From where he'll bring us the proven Democratic wartime leadership of Bosnia and the Balkans (US forces still there), Somalia (US forces prevailed despite being ill equipped by executive order, and taking heavy casualties), Haiti (what were we doing there again?), Desert One (oops?), Vietnam (where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory), Korea (still there), WWI, and the fluke success of WWII won by such wonderful liberal notions as concentration camps for Japanese Americans, nukes, FBI investigations of waitresses who dated soldiers in case they were "morally corrupt" and the (valid) occupation of and continued presence in Italy, Japan and Germany for 60 years, which they are conveniently pretending won't happen with Iraq. That's not "change." That's "failure we can do without."

Perhaps Old Media will look into this? Nah. That would go against the Obamamania of the press and prevent more people from having "Obamagasms."

You can access the BlackFive posts here:

From G.I. in Afghanistan - "We got more thanks from the Dallas cowboy Cheerleaders" than from Senator Obama
BlackFive.net
July 23, 2008

More Witness Email - Senator Obama's PR Tour
BlackFive.net
July 24, 2008

Fact Check: Obama's Platoon Story

Wow! A few days ago, the leftist New York Times ran an anonymous source based story about John McCain on the front page in an effort to discredit the presumptive GOP nominee for President.

But, when B. Hussein Obama comes up with his own anonymous source based story, no one seemed to notice or even ask if the story was true. Here is what Obama said:

"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon _ supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon," Obama said. "Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. "And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief."

His source? An anonymous Army Captain. Where was the press at the time? Why weren't they clamoring all over B. Hussein Obama for verification and a way to corroborate the story?

They weren't there because as the John McCain story (and the world famous Dan Ra^ther Air National Guard Memo story) reminded us, anonymous sources are not to be trusted.

From TownHall.com:

Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to release the name of the captain, citing the soldier's privacy, and pointed to an ABC News account as verification of the story. Obama learned about the captain's allegation from a staffer who had spoken with the captain, according to Vietor. ABC News said it talked to the unidentified captain, whose account of shortages in Afghanistan was for the most part accurately summarized by Obama, although not verified. The captain said, however, that the unit did not go after the Taliban for the purpose of getting their weapons, but sometimes used those weapons when some were captured.

I for one, do not believe Obama or ABC ever talked to such a soldier. Time may prove me wrong, but for right now, and until someone legitimately wearing a U.S. Army uniform with Captain's bars on the collar comes forward to claim credit for the above statements, I don't believe it.

Senator John Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has sent a letter to Barack Obama asking for more information about this platoon and the whereabouts of this Captain.

As I said above, I don't believe the Obama campaign or ABC News will be obliging in their responses.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Fact Check: Obama's Platoon Story
TownHall.com
February 22, 2008

Democrats Dug In For Retreat

Remember when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) yelled: "The war is lost!" into a microphone? I do. I remember thinking how disrespectful it was to the troops who were serving over in Iraq and Afghanistan and how it was no surprise that a Dem would so publically show such disrespect.

Well, the Dems seem to have invested themselves into Reid's position because they cannot seem to get a grip on reality nor do they seem the least bit able to communicate that reality to their followers. Over at Real Clear Politics, Charles Krauthammer shows us a quote that came from a man who was an outspoken war critic:

"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. ... If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state." -- Anthony Cordesman, "The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing from the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008

But the Dems just go meekly running back to Harry Reid and his disrespectful and pessimistic attitude.

Charles goes on:

We get news of the Anbar Awakening, which has now spread to other Sunni areas and Baghdad. The sectarian civil strife that the Democrats insisted was the reason for us to leave dwindles to the point of near disappearance. Much of Baghdad is returning to normal. There are 90,000 neighborhood volunteers -- ordinary citizens who act as auxiliary police and vital informants on terror activity -- starkly symbolizing the insurgency's loss of popular support. Captured letters of al-Qaeda leaders reveal despair as they are driven -- mostly by Iraqi Sunnis, their own Arab co-religionists -- to flight and into hiding. After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it's all pointless unless you get national reconciliation. "National" is a way to ignore what is taking place at the local and provincial level, such as Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim, scion of the family that dominates the largest Shiite party in Iraq, traveling last October to Anbar in an unprecedented gesture of reconciliation with the Sunni sheiks. Doesn't count, you see. Democrats demand nothing less than federal-level reconciliation, and it has to be expressed in actual legislation.

And the fledgling Iraqi Parliament has passed more meaningful legislation in the past year than our own Dem controlled Congress has gotten out. In fact, the Iraqis passed a provincial powers law, a partial prisoner amnesty and an Iraqi Federal budget. What would the Dems say about this?

They will complain that there is still no oil distribution law. True. But oil revenues are being distributed to the provinces in the national budget. The fact that parliament could not agree on a permanent formula for the future simply means that it will be allocating oil revenues year-by-year as part of the budget process. Is that a reason to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda and Iran? Despite all the progress military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our "very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state." Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now achievable victory?

And that's what it really comes down to, Bush Derangement Syndrome. The Dems are so blinded by hate for the current sitting President that they are willing to cause damage to the entire United States in order to hand President Bush an embarrassment.

Way to go Pelosi and Reid!

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Dug In For Retreat
Charles Krauthammer
RealClearPolitics.com
February 22, 2008