Warning to liberals - I am going to talk about Barack Obama again, so please read carefully.

I extend this warning because, in the past, when I write something like "Obama's foreign policy regarding Iran doesn't make sense", liberals read it as "I'm a heartless racist Republican dittohead who hates black people and the poor". This time, I'd like to point out the difference between those things up front, to hopefully avoid any further misunderstanding.

If that is understood, then I can continue, by saying…

Obama's foreign policy regarding Iran doesn't make sense.

Two things stand clear about Barack Obama's presidential campaign. First, he's going to be critical of all things Bush, that's a given, and second, he is going to try to link Bush to John McCain at every turn. Obama and the Democrats in general are running against George W. Bush much more than they are running against John McCain, even though Bush isn't running. That's why Obama's foreign policy speech from last week didn't discuss just how Bush's policies were wrong, his speech discussed how the "Bush/McCain" policies were wrong. Obama said "Bush/McCain" so many times (at least 10) that I started thinking maybe those guys are really one person rather than two, or at least conjoined twins. The second that John McCain became the de facto Republican presidential nominee, he stopped being the Democrats favorite ethical stand-up bipartisan maverick Senator who bucked his own party in the name of truth, justice, and the american way, and he started being McCain the Bush clone, the Bush third termer. Funny how that works. The New York Times can't find anything nice to say about John McCain anymore. It's so sad when a love affair ends.

Here are some examples of Obama's 'Bush/McCain Are Conjoined Twins' strategy on Iran from that speech:

"George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for…[Their foreign policy] made Iran stronger. George Bush’s policies. They’re [Bush/McCain] going to have to explain why Hamas now controls Gaza, Hamas that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we should have democratic elections in the Palestinian authority. They’re going to have to explain why it is that Iran is able to fund Hezbollah and poses the greatest threat to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. That’s the Bush-McCain record on protecting this country. Those are the failed policies that John McCain wants to double down on, because he still hasn’t spelled out one substantial way in which he’d be different from George Bush when it comes to foreign policy…Our Iran policy is a complete failure right now, and that is the policy that John McCain is running on right now. He has nothing to offer except the naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism. I’m running for President to change course, not to continue George Bush’s course. I believe we need to use all elements of American power to pressure Iran, including tough, principled and direct diplomacy".

I think you all get the message here. Barack Obama is clearly against George John Bush McCain's Iranian policy. Clearly.

Now for the kicker, the mind-blowing mother of all hypocrisies. About 10 seconds later, in the exact same speech, after savaging Bush's Iranian foreign policy, Barack Obama said this:

"It’s time to present Iran with a clear choice. If it abandons its nuclear program, its support for terrorists and its threats to Israel, then it can rejoin the community of nations. If not, Iran will face deeper isolation and steeper sanctions. But in the Bush-McCain view, everybody who disagrees with their failed Iran policy is an “appeaser.”"

For those of you who don't recognize it, presenting Iran with a choice between it's nuclear program, it's support for terrorists, it's threats against Israel, and suffering sanctions and further isolation IS THE BUSH POLICY TOWARD IRAN !!!!! After trashing Bush's Iranian policy, Obama turns right around and adopts it as if it's his own !!! And then Obama pretends that Bush doesn't even hold his own policy !!! IS ANYBODY OUT THERE LISTENING TO THE WORDS COMING OUT OF BARACK OBAMA'S MOUTH ??? The media sure isn't, because none of them even appeared to notice. By the way, did any of you notice how Obama had pretty much the entire mainstream media at his beck and call last week ? He had about 30 minutes of free campaign commercials all over the news networks, on demand. In the interests of fairness, the media later gave John McCain-Bush III about 30 seconds too. It's only fair. The media also couldn't be bothered to point out that Obama's new position on Iran (the Bush position) is a complete about face from his previous stance of negotiating with Iran without preconditions (the position Hillary ridiculed in the Democratic debates). Obama has now completely surrounded Iranian foreign policy by taking both sides of the argument, as he attempts to do on so many issues. That is as hypocritical as can be ("nuanced" in New York TimesSpeak). My reaction to Obama's foreign policy drivel is the same reaction Lebron James has to that obnoxious chubby guy in the lawnmower commercial: "get that weak stuff outta here !"

I suggest Obama change his campaign theme from 'Change You Can Believe In' to 'Change That Isn't Change', or maybe he can use that old David Byrne/Talking Heads blurb from the 80's, 'Stop Making Sense', because when it comes to foreign policy, Obama stopped making sense a while ago. In sports terms, Obama might be the Rookie Of The Year, but he sure doesn't deserve the MVP.

I could write 10 posts about what was wrong with Obama's foreign policy speech last week, and perhaps I will. It was riddled with falsehoods, doubletalk, and distortions. I only pointed out some of the more egregious ones this time. See ya later.

Isn't it sad to see the President Of The United States begging Saudi Arabia to pump more oil ? And then being turned down ? It didn't have to be this way.

Isn't it sad that the war funding bill has to be kicked around like a political football by Congress ? The Democrats attempted to add all sorts of non-war related domestic items to the bill, the Republicans revolted and sat out the vote, and the end result was, the war funding bill was voted down. The troops appreciate your non-support, you sorry politicians.

Isn't it sad that every bill that comes before Congress seems to go over budget and is full of all kinds of unnecessary earmarks to inflate the cost, as was seen in the Farm Bill that Congress sent to Bush's desk ?

Isn't it sad that we've spent a billion dollars on this presidential election race, and we haven't even reached the general election phase yet ? There are still 5 1/2 months until november. This election seems like it's gone on forever. There has to be a better and more cost effective way, not to mention one which doesn't disenfranchise millions of voters in Florida and Michigan.

Isn't it sad how Barack Obama thinks any political opinion that differs from his own is "divisive" and "the politics of fear" ? What an ego. Bush told the Israeli Knesset that he disagreed with those who would negotiate with terrorists and radicals, and Obama went into what John McCain termed "hysterical diatribe" mode to denounce Bush's words. Why is it that Obama's endless attacks against the Bush administration AREN'T "divisive", but Bush says one thing (that wasn't even directed toward Obama) and you'd think the world just collapsed ? Here's just one of many overblown comments from the Obama campaign yesterday:

“Obviously, this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil,” Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs told CNN’s John Roberts.

Ludicrous political theater. It makes Bush's comments sound equivalent to, say, Pearl Harbor. By the way, during his hissy fit, Obama repeated his schizoid foreign policy of NOT negotiating with Hamas because they are a terrorist group, but YES to negotiating with Iran, a state sponsor of terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iraqi insurgency, and a designated terrorist group themselves (Iranian Revolutionary Guard). Is anyone ever going to call Obama on any of his nonsensical and contradictory rhetoric ? It seems not. He's historic, after all.

Speaking of Obama, here's another in a growing number of very sad quotes from him: "We need to stand up to the special interests, bring Republicans and Democrats together and pass the farm bill immediately". Uh, stand up to WHAT special interests ? The Farm bill by it's nature is a bundle of money thrown at special interests in the form of subsidies. Here are only a few of the special interests being catered to in the Farm bill, courtesy of Jacob Sullum of Townhall.com:

"…tax breaks for racehorse owners, "marketing aid" for fruit and vegetable growers, research funding for organic farmers, enhanced price supports for domestic sugar producers, increased subsidies for dairy farmers, a $170-million earmark for the salmon industry, and billions of dollars in automatic payments and "permanent disaster assistance" for corn, wheat, cotton, rice and soybean growers. Take that, special interests!"

To be accurate, Obama would have to say passing the Farm bill required a bipartisan CAVING IN to special interests (which Congress did, as usual, and it was bipartisan, just as Obama requested). Is anybody really listening to the words coming out of Obama's mouth ? It seems not. The more I hear Obama talk, the less sense he makes.

And the very saddest thing of all on the political front yesterday also involved Obama's words, when Obama criticized the Bush administration for promoting democracy in Palestine and Iraq. I assume this means democracy would no longer be an important part of american foreign policy during an Obama presidency. That would be a major foreign policy reversal. Yeah, who needs liberty and open government ? Bah, humbug. Like I asked before, is anybody listening to the words coming out of Obama's mouth ? Obama said "words count". I couldn't agree more, and Obama's words are scary, not to mention, dare I say, divisive.

We all remember when Barack Obama said he would meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to negotiate, without precondition. Obama said it during a YouTube debate, and has repeated his promise to negotiate with our enemies as well as our friends many times. It has even become part of his stump speech. Hillary Clinton used it as an example of Obama's inexperience and naivete on foreign policy. Nevertheless, Barack stuck to his guns, saying that his view represented a break from the politics of the past, was the hope and change that americans want, and probably a few other airy Obamanian catchphrases as well.

Until now.

Maybe it was the way the terrorist group Hamas turned Jimmy Carter into a "useful idiot" and used his meeting to legitimize themselves and propagandize the Israel/Palestine issue, or maybe it was the fact that Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for president of the USA, leading to some back and forth contention between Obama and John McCain. Whatever it was, the Obama camp sensed a shift in the political winds, and is now backing away from the idea of negotiating with our enemies, to the point that they are even saying Obama didn't say what we all so clearly heard him say before. The liberal's best friend, the New York Times, is rushing to aid the Obama campaign in changing history. Here's an excerpt from the relevant Times article:

…But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain’s side. An examination of Mr. Obama’s numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” has not sought the group’s support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president

Note how the Times says the McCain side has "lost" "important nuances" (love that phraseology), even as the Times is TELLING A BLATANT FALSEHOOD REGARDING WHAT OBAMA SAID ABOUT IRAN. Classic, typical, and hilarious.

Susan E. Rice, an Obama foreign policy advisor, further added this, according to the same Times article:

“for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state. Mr. Obama believes “that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need,” Dr. Rice said. “But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

The problem with the statements of Dr. Rice and the New York Times, as I said, is that they they are patently false. They are attempting a little mid-campaign spin, because they have been caught with their pants down. Obama DID say he would personally meet with Iran, without preconditions, and he not only said it in front of the whole nation during the YouTube debate, he also SAID IT IN A NEW YORK TIMES INTERVIEW, which the Times has conveniently forgotten. Here's a little from THAT interview, from november 2007 (the misty "beforetimes" which have been erased from the Times memory banks):

Senator Barack Obama said he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president…Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees…“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” [Obama] said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change…"

Oops. Blatant lie exposed. When first we practice to deceive….

Here's another interesting part of that 2007 Times interview:

Mr. Obama has also talked about keeping a limited force in Iraq after withdrawing American combat units at the rate of one or two per month. But Mr. Obama insisted in the interview that the mission of his residual force would be more limited than that posited by Mrs. Clinton.

Excuse me, but would that residual military force in Iraq be the same residual military force that has become one of the Democrats big phony talking points against McCain, stirred up by distorting McCain's "we might stay in Iraq for 100 years" comment ? Why, yes, I believe it would. Lie times two.

They say Barack Obama represents a new kind of politics, but to me, this sounds exactly like the old kind. Just a bunch of politically expedient BS. No character, no truth, just spin, spin, spin.

Here's something you might not have heard about, seeing as how our left-biased media (90% of newspapers, 80% of television stations) didn't bother to report on it. It concerns the other war, in Afghanistan. As every american media consumer knows, and as every Democrat happily reports, Bush abandoned Afghanistan to go into Iraq. Thus, the Taliban is returning to power and Afghanistan is going to hell due to Dubya's wrong-headed policy. That's pretty much the way they characterize it, right ? Right.

There's a problem with that characterization, and the problem is, it isn't true. NATO released a progress report on Afghanistan earlier this month. Here is an excerpt from the executive summary of that report:

August 2008 marks the fifth anniversary of NATO’s presence in Afghanistan. Set against the devastating effect of decades of conflict, these five years have witnessed substantial progress in all spheres of Afghan life – from a reasonably stable security situation in most of the country to a massive increase in the number of health clinics and children in schools. Since 2003, NATO-ISAF has gradually extended its reach and is now responsible for security across the whole country. The number of our troops has grown steadily from the initial 5,000 in Kabul to the current 47,000 ISAF personnel in theatre. Today, large parts of the country are relatively stable with no or very few security incidents per month even if the security situation in southern Afghanistan and parts of the East remains challenging for international and Afghan security forces. There is room for cautious optimism. In 2007, the direct engagement of Afghan National Army (ANA) and ISAF routinely defeated militants. Although the overall number of security incidents across Afghanistan has increased, this corresponds to the expansion of Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and NATO-ISAF operations to areas formerly considered to be extremist strongholds. In 2007, 70% of security incidents were confined to 10% of Afghanistan’s 398 Districts. These districts contain less than 6% of the Afghan population. This progress would not be possible without the increasing effectiveness of our Afghan partners. The ANA is becoming a professional, well-trained and equipped force that will be able to fully provide for its country’s security. In 2002, there was no ANA to speak of. Today, the ANA stands at around 50,000; every two weeks, the Kabul Military Training Centre graduates 1,100 more soldiers. The ANA is increasingly taking the lead in security operations and played a key role in liberating Musa Qala from Taleban extremists in December 2007. Ninety per cent of the Afghan public sees the ANA as an honest and fair institution. The evolution of the ANA and particularly the ANP are essential pillars in building an Afghanistan that is at peace with itself and its neighbours.

It's not all peaches and cream in Afghanistan, but there is substantial positive news, and Afghanistan is light years better than it was before. I wonder why Democrats and the media can't bring themselves to acknowledge that ? It wouldn't have anything to do with POLITICS, would it ?

The art of deception is alive and well. You see, the prospects for the Democrats in the fall elections are in inverse proportion to how things are going in america. If Afghanistan is going badly, that's good for Democrats. If Iraq is going badly, that's good for Democrats. If the economy is going badly, that's good for Democrats. Anything going right in america seems to be bad for Democrats. Is it any wonder then that the Democrats have painted such a negative picture of the United States ? The Dems say we're losing both wars, are sure global warming is about to destroy the planet, are predicting a second Great Depression, act as if most americans are living in tents, and pretend that border control is some kind of racist plot. They try to convince us that the rich are out to enslave the poor, that capitalism is a disease, and that free trade is our enemy. The solution, of course, is to elect Democrats to save us from this horrible fate. The solution, incredibly, is for Dems to increase taxes by a few trillion so they can make sure the country is destroyed fix all the problems. All this brings to my mind those old words that should never fail to have us shaking in our boots - "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." No thank you, government. You've done enough already.

I submit to you that Hillary Clinton is NOT a leader, is dishonest, and for those reasons should NOT be the next president of the United States. Most of you already know this. This is for the few who don't. Her continuous lying about Iraq, for the sole reason of garnering votes, proves the point. Her non-stop shucking and jiving on the war, her myriad poll-driven positions on the same, all point to a woman devoid of principle, but one consumed with the hunger for power. Look at her history regarding Iraq.

Here's Hillary defending her husband's 4-day Iraq bombing campaign, known as Operation Desert Fox:

“[T]he so-called presidential palaces … in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left.” - Hillary in December, 1998.

And here's what Hillary said when the polls looked favorably toward the Iraq war, and when she thought it might look bad to vote against it, so she voted for it, as did John Edwards, as did John Kerry. Obama was not yet in the Senate, so he had no vote.

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I’ve followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. . . . I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way part of this decision - Hillary addresses Code Pink on March 7, 2003.

Take note of the fact that in 2003, Hillary said she'd been following Saddam's movements for "more than a decade".

Here's what Hillary said to the troops back then:

“We must stay the course” in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked for more troops to finish the job…We have to exert all of our efforts militarily” - Hillary on November 29, 2003, when visiting the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But something happened on the way to the easy six-week american victory in Iraq. Saddam's men didn't really fight us. Instead, they disbanded and adopted guerilla-style insurgent tactics, and then Al Qaeda sympathizers flooded into the country to fight The Great Satan in the same manner, using terrorist tactics. It became a security nightmare, severely impairing the new Iraqi government and reconstruction.

So what did Hillary do ? She started dissembling. In 2005, Hillary embarked upon a new strategy, claiming she had been misled by false intelligence from - guess who - THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ! You aren't supposed to notice that the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION had all the same intelligence conclusions for it's entire 8 years, that regime change in Iraq was the policy of the Clinton administration, or that the intelligence doesn't really come from any ADMINISTRATION, it comes from the CIA and other intelligence bodies.

"If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed" - Hillary on November 29, 2005 in an e-mail sent to her supporters.

At the same time, Hillary began her absurd claim that she didn't know her vote authorizing the use of military force in Iraq actually authorized the use of military force in Iraq:

"assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections," Clinton lamented: "Their assurances turned out to be empty ones." - Hillary on November 29, 2005 from the same e-mail.

Of course, Hillary still "supports the troops", as she attempts to lose the war in order to get votes, as Iraq war popularity plummets. Hillary also doesn't want to be seen as soft on Al Qaeda, even as she begins shilling for an Al Qaeda victory in Iraq.

"I have continually raised doubts about the President's claims, lack of planning and execution of the war,while standing firmly in support of our troops…Criticism of this Administration's policies should not in any way be confused with softness against terrorists, inadequate support for democracy or lack of patriotism" Hillary on November 29, 2005 from the same e-mail.

By 2007, you weren't even supposed to remember that Hillary voted for the war, much less that Congress authorized it:

"Nearly four years ago our president rushed us into war in Iraq." - Hillary on February 7, 2007

When Rumsfeld was canned, and new tactics were implemented in Iraq (the surge) in 2007, Hillary was completely against it. She even called general Petraeus a liar in so many words for reporting on the success of the surge, a success that everyone must now admit to (other than the hardcore lunatic fringe who won't ever admit to anything being successful as long as Bush is at the helm).

But get a load of how Hillary actually tried to TAKE CREDIT for the successes of the surge she was dead set against. A giant hook should have come out and pulled her off the stage when she tried this lie out on Tim Russert on Meet The Press.

January 13, 2008, on Meet The Press

MR. RUSSERT: If General Petraeus says, "Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it's worked"–let me finish–"you can see on the ground. I'm saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don't destroy Iraq. It's working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete."

SEN. CLINTON: …The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.

One slight correction to Mr. Russert. Hillary actually called Petraeus' testimony "the willing suspension of disbelief".

In closing, there is one Hillary quote I can wholeheartedly agree with:

"The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not" - Hillary Clinton.

The number of lawyers seeking the Democratic presidential nomination has been reduced from three to two. The ambulance chasing lawyer is out. The coattail riding lawyer and the civil rights lawyer remain. The coattail rider is the frontrunner for the moment, and has the edge in experience, having both 35 years of coattail riding plus seven years in the Senate. The civil rights lawyer has only three years in the Senate, but at least he didn't earn his Senate seat because of his last name, like the coattail rider did. He earned it the old-fashioned way (his primary opponent, who was leading, self-destructed amid allegations of domestic abuse, and his opponent in the general election withdrew due to a sex scandal, leaving him virtually unopposed, with Alan Keyes jumping in as 11th hour opposition with no chance of winning). The Democratic party had tagged the civil rights lawyer for greatness even before he won his Senate seat by default however, by making him the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He is the anointed candidate of change, and the future of the Democratic party. The Kennedy family has endorsed him, and Caroline Kennedy said he reminds her of her father, JFK. Visions of a new Camelot are dancing in Democratic heads. Never mind that Caroline also said John F. Kerry reminded her of her father back in 2004 (Must be the initials in the name, because I can't think of any other resemblence there).

All this talk of change, the future, Camelot, and anointing has the coattail rider hopping mad, because, dammit, this was supposed to be HER year, she was supposed to be the anointee, and, double dammit, SHE'S A WOMAN, which gives her street cred in Democratic Identity Politics (DIP). However, in an ironic twist of cruel fate for the coattail rider, the civil rights lawyer is black, giving him even MORE street cred in DIP world. The ambulance chasing lawyer was a mere third wheel, with no DIP cred whatsoever. No wonder he was so angry.

The coattail rider pulled out her 'Big Gun' (pun intended) - the esteemed, venerable, beloved in the Democratic party, lecherous, adulterous, sexual abuser, the ex-president. The Big Gun called the civil rights lawyer's position on Iraq a "fairy tale", which was immediately denounced as a racist remark (don't ask me to explain how that was allegedly racist. This is the Democratic party. Nothing makes sense here. The Big Gun did make later remarks that were racially motivated, though). Apparently, the Big Gun didn't notice his wife the coattail rider's position on Iraq was much more of a fairy tale than that of her opponent. The coattail rider literally said that when she voted in favor of a resolution called the AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ, she didn't know that meant it was an AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ. She claimed she thought she was only voting for weapons inspectors to finish their job. Seriously. This is the woman Democrats call 'the smartest woman in the world'. And, SHE'S THE FRONTRUNNER ! Like I said, don't expect this stuff to make sense, it's the Democrats. Being a boldfaced liar is usually an asset. It mostly worked for the Big Gun, until a certain blue dress appeared…..

But I digress. Back on topic, there is a new fairy tale being tossed around by the Democrats regarding Iraq, and I've heard both the coattail rider and the civil rights lawyer mention it, so it must have been cooked up over at DIP headquarters, maybe at the DNC by Howie Dean. This fantasy seems too silly for even James Carville to have cooked up. The fairy tale goes like this : The Iraqis, knowing that either the coattail rider or the civil rights lawyer could be the next president of the USA, and would remove US troops, are behaving better and making progress, because they know their time for depending on the USA is running out.

This master(batory) stroke of demented and corrupt genius accomplishes a number of things for the Democrats: it is used to nullify the results of the surge, which the Democrats were uniformly wrong about; it lays more groundwork for pulling out of Iraq; it provides justification for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Dems are heavily invested in defeat, because they must prove Bush wrong at all costs. If you haven't noticed, every time one benchmark of success is met in Iraq, and several have been met recently, the Democrats move onto the next one as proof of american failure. Now, I don't want to paint the Iraq picture as a bowl of cherries here, but shouldn't we at least expect a little basic honesty from our leading presidential candidates on one of biggest issues going, instead of this pure fiction and spin for political gain ? Shouldn't we at least expect our leading presidential candidates to WANT america to succeed ? At the VERY LEAST ???

The scene was the New Hampshire debates. Moderator Charles Gibson asked the Democrats the following question: “We started the surge early this year. You all opposed it. But there are real signs it has worked…So I want to ask all of you, are any of you ready to say that the surge has worked?”

Most of the candidates went to the stock Democratic evasion, and said no political reconciliation has occurred, therefore the surge was a failure. Apparently, substantial reductions in violence and deaths mean nothing. Hillary Clinton didn't even apologize for her "willing suspension of disbelief" slander of General Petraeus, the orchestrator of surge progress. Being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry, or even having to acknowledge reality.

But Barack Obama took first prize for creative fiction with his answer. Obama, in a statement not about the Audacity Of Hope, but just pure, brazen audacity, said, “Now, I had no doubt — and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence…I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi'as. We should start negotiating now. That's how you change behavior.”

Obama actually said the DEMOCRATS are responsible for the reductions in violence in Iraq that have accompanied the surge !!! ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME ??? THE DEMOCRATS ??? The 'war is lost', 'impeach Bush', 'bring the troops home now', 'no war for oil', 'Al Qaeda's american political mouthpiece' DEMOCRATS ??? Oh, HELL NO !!! The only thing the Democrats are responsible for in the Iraq war is giving Al Qaeda hope. Except you, Joe Lieberman. Oh wait, the Dems kicked you out. You're an Independent now. Good for you.

Obama also said he opposed the surge even though he knew it would work, due to 'how wonderfully our troops perform' (yes, he's a politician, for sure). Why did he oppose it if he knew it would work ? Could it be because he knows that success in Iraq is very bad news for Democrats ? Could it be because the Democrats are heavily invested in failure in Iraq, that they care more about winning elections than winning the war ? No, I suppose that isn't possible at all. I must be all wrong about that. Sure.

What Obama also failed to mention regarding american troops leaving Iraq (beside the fact that they aren't), is that getting the american troops out of Iraq IS AL QAEDA'S NUMBER ONE GOAL. In 2005, a correspondence from Al Qaeda number two man Ayman Al-Zawahiri to Iraq Al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (now deceased) was intercepted, and has been declassified. In that communique, Al-Zawahiri outlined Al Qaeda's four stage plan for domination of the Middle East. Iraq was Job One. The four stages of Al Qaeda domination, in Al Zawahiri's words, are:

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.

There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

I guess Barack Obama just forgot that, as has the rest of the Democratic party. I hope this also puts to rest the idea that Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism. It's the central front. It's the central front because Bush (and Al Qaeda) made it the central front, that's true, but we still have to be successful there. There is no other acceptable option. Leaving Iraq before the Iraqi government can stay together and defend itself is nothing more than an invitation for Al Qaeda to fill the power vacuum, and isn't Al Qaeda the main enemy ? It may not be the position we want to be in, but it's the position we're in. It's about time the Democrats start dealing with the truth about Iraq instead of making up politically convenient fantasies like Barack Obama just did.

Benazir Bhutto knew she was risking her life by returning to Pakistan. By directly confronting the extremist Islamic elements there, such as Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the madrassas, the radical imams, and radical elements within the Pakistani government, Bhutto knew she was venturing into the very heart of darkness of Islamic terrorism. She made no secret that it was the tyrranical terrorist element she was coming to fight against, by instituting democratic reforms, by removing military rule, by appealing to the vast majority of moderate Pakistanis. Bhutto had even condoned the use of NATO forces to eradicate Al Qaeda and other terrorist factions from the tribal regions in Waziristan, a move the Musharraf government had rejected. The Musharraf government turned against the terrorist element mainly because it's other option was to incur the post 9/11 wrath of the United States, most indelicately stated as being 'bombed back to the stone age'. Yet, even in turning against the radical Islamists, even though Musharraf did apprehend more terrorists than any country other than the USA, he seemed to be playing both sides of the fence, as he tried to juggle the opposing interests of the jihadists and the free world. Democratic reform was not coming under Musharraf, and the Pakistani people increasingly lost confidence in his government. The january elections in Pakistan, if fairly held, would have seen Benazir Bhutto return as prime minister, and led to a probable sharing of power between herself and Musharraf.

The biggest losers in a Bhutto return to power would have been the Islamofascists, no question about that. They knew it. They tried to kill Bhutto last october, and they have wanted to kill her since the 90's. I'm sure there was joy among Al Qaeda and the other like-minded subhuman scum when Benazir Bhutto was assassinated yesterday. In typical fashion, after the assassin shot Bhutto, he detonated a bomb, killing himself and a number of other innocent people. We've seen this scene play out way too many times. When will the world stop tolerating this ?

Now, we must endure our own media and the partisans, with their typical 'who do we blame ?' attitude. Blaming the actual killers evidently never occurs to them. Last night, I already heard elements blaming Bush for pushing democracy in Pakistan (as if he's supposed to push for something else ?). I heard elements blaming Condoleeza Rice for encouraging Benazir Bhutto (as if the decision to return to Pakistan was made by anyone other than Bhutto herself). I heard elements playing that old tune that Pakistan isn't ready for democracy (bs, and racist bs as well. 99% of Pakistan IS ready for and desires democratic reforms). I even heard some american presidential candidates say that Bhutto's death proves that we should vote for them, because they have foreign policy experience (one more great argument for limited government).

Benazir Bhutto's death is a tragedy. She died for her country, and if anything positive is to come from it, it will be when her reforms are CARRIED OUT. It will be because the Pakistani people realize what Bhutto represented was the correct path, which is the path against tyrrany. You don't abandon that path because it is difficult. The path of least resistance isn't usually the correct one, and it certainly isn't in Pakistan. My hope is that after the initial shock of this crime is absorbed, the good people in Pakistan and the rest of the world realize that, and act accordingly. When heinous acts like this are carried out, it is the terrorists who should end up paying a hundredfold, not the innocent. It's my hope that's what happens here.

For Bhutto's speech following the october 2007 attempt on her life, click here.

"The only people who are safe are militants because they will not be attacked by the peaceful people. And we will not be intimidated by this minority. This is a battle for democracy. We want to avoid bloodshed. We want to avoid loss of life. But, if it means sacrificing our lives to save Pakistan and to save democracy because we believe democracy alone can save Pakistan from disintegration and a militant takeover then we are prepared to risk our lives and we are prepared to risk our liberty."

Benazir Bhutto
Former Pakistani Prime Minister & PPP chairperson
October 20, 2007

Amen, and rest in peace, Benazir Bhutto. The tyrants can silence one voice, but they can't silence them all, unless we allow it.

Newsweek magazine has turned over some space within it's covers to that renowned international diplomat, the voice of reason, Columbia university's favorite Jew-hating, armageddon seeking, executor of homosexuals and oppressor of women (but evidently a cool guy because he hates Bush too, same as Newsweek and Columbia do), Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Let's give Newsweek and the little america hating fellow a nice hand (or at least one finger of a hand, that's all I could muster). Newsweek shows a nice picture of a smiling Ahmadinejad for a 'special guest commentary' (isn't that special ?) titled 'An Arrogant Approach, The Dangers of Unilateralism - For The United States And The World'. Naturally, it's a condemnation of american foreign policy. If I didn't know it was Ahmadinejad talking, I would have guessed that it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) who wrote the article. Those two sound so much alike, it's uncanny. Harry must have Mahmoud on speed dial or something, so he can get the latest Iranian talking points heard in the halls of Congress as quickly as possible.

Tell me Ahmadinejad doesn't sound just like the liberal Democrats in Congress or the far left in general:

"After the end of the cold war and the regional confrontations emanating from bipolar competition, many hoped there would be a beautiful spring in international relations, as a multilateral system emerged that offered equal opportunities to all members of the international community. It was hoped that the new world would enable all nations, in light of universally accepted humane norms and mutual respect, to advance together, eradicate poverty and injustice, and set aside bitter memories of the past that were nothing but war, bloodshed, violence and tension.

Those hopes were dashed by the United States and its leaders, who adopted a new and aggressive approach. Their assertion of unchallenged global leadership—and the inability of the international community and the United Nations to challenge it—frustrated hopes for a stable and peaceful world. Instead, once again we witness the re-emergence of a system that produced nothing but tension and insecurity.

"Absolute unilateralism" by the United States is the salient element of the new system adopted by the U.S. government toward world development. It has prevented the American people from playing their proper role in eliminating tyranny and violence and in helping bring peace, justice and security. Why should the prestige of the great American people be tarnished by the selfish and bullying ambitions of their government, whose negative role is clearly visible in many current conflicts, especially in the Middle East?

The worst example of this approach was the U.S. attack on Iraq and its catastrophic consequences. What was the crime of the 700,000 Iraqis, mostly women and children, who have died since, or of the many more that have been disabled, injured and displaced? On the basis of what international norms and rules can the U.S. government justify its actions over the past four and a half years there? Who should be held accountable for the destruction and oppression of the Iraqi people?"

Can't you just see the libs nodding their heads in agreement with Ahmadinejad ? They have to be, because they've been saying the same exact things for years about the Bush administration.

Forget about that little old 444-day Iranian hostage crisis thingy between the USA and Iran. That couldn't be the reason there was no "beautiful spring in international relations" between us, could it ? Naw. That probably didn't even happen, like the Holocaust, which Ahmadinejad also denies. Ahmadinejad condemns the US for removing Saddam, whom Iran also fought for 8 years, but he covers up for that by blaming, guess who, the USA, because we supported Saddam following the IRANIAN HOSTAGE CRISIS. You have to be a complete dunderhead to take this guy seriously (btw, 'complete dunderhead' and 'liberal' are synonyms). Iran also has been seeking war with Israel through it proxies in Syria, by supporting Hezbollah among others, they have openly advocated the destruction of Israel, and they have denied the IAEA access to their nuclear program, so I ask you:

What kind of morons do you have to be to keep giving this lying piece of crap a stage from which to spew his hatemongering propaganda ? That's you, Newsweek. Stop legitimizing Adolph Hitler's spiritual brother, you festering scabs on journalism's butt. This is precisely the man you should be de-legitimizing, as I have just done.

The new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) says Iran stopped working on it's nuclear weapons program in 2003, which has Democrats in Congress grinning from ear to ear, and Republicans in Congress scratching their heads. The Democrats are grinning, not because no active Iranian nuclear program is good news (though it certainly is, if true), but because they believe it gives them some ammunition in the Democrat's war against the real enemy, George W. Bush and his merry band of neocons. Republicans are scratching their heads, because the 2007 version of the NIE is a direct contradiction to the 2005 version of the NIE, which indicated that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons. The 2007 version is also a contradiction to the 2002 NIE on Iran. From all I've read on this subject recently, it appears nobody in our media has noticed that if the Iranians STOPPED working on nuclear weapons in 2003, then they had to be working ON developing nukes up until that time, which gives the lie to the Iranian claim that they never intended to build nuclear weapons. Iran was lying to the world. The new NIE cites "international pressure" as the reason Iran stopped it's nuclear program in 2003. Let me see now, if what the NIE says is true, who was applying the most international pressure on Iran in 2003 and forward ?….Hmmm….Oh yeah, it was GEORGE W. BUSH and his merry band of neocons, who coincidentally happened to have america's military right next door in Iraq, and were telling Iran to stop it's nuclear weapons program or else. It was either THAT international pressure, or the UN having a meeting and issuing a statement that deterred Iran. You decide.

Wasting no time in attempting to take political advantage of this new development, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid characterized the NIE as “directly challenging some of this administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran.” Reid also said he hoped the administration “appropriately adjusts its rhetoric and policy” (No word on whether Harry Reid will adjust his own "the war is lost" rhetoric and policy regarding Iraq in light of the recent success there). This is so typical of the Harry Reids of the world. When the tough talk and firm stance against Iran appears to have worked, they criticize the tough talk and firm stance, and then recommend that the policy goes back to the former weak one that didn't work at all. Brilliant, Harry, just brilliant. If I thought for a second that Reid believed his own words (I don't), I'd think the guy was just dumb, but he isn't, he's a calculating partisan animal. Reid's not dumb, he's just full of it.

National security advisor Stephen Hadley puts the news in a more realistic light:

“It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Hadley said. “It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.”

“The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically — without the use of force — as the administration has been trying to do,” Mr. Hadley said.

UPDATE 12/6/07:

Here are the key judgements of the 2007 NIE on Iran, which can be linked to here:

• We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were
working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of
intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC
assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt
to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)
• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons
program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop
nuclear weapons.
• We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently
have a nuclear weapon.
• Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined
to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment
that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure
suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged
previously.