Archive for the ‘Appeasement’ Category

Gerald Warner’s article is today’s must reading. In his article, Mr. Warner claims that President Obama doesn’t know who the enemy is, then provides examples of President Obama’s war:

Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

That is why he opened Pandora’s Box by publishing the Justice Department’s legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.

“Don’t be discouraged by what’s happened the last few weeks,” he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them – or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.

So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.

Today’s Democrats are forever worrying about “America’s image in the world.” That’s a lovely notion in peacetime but it’s dangerous in wartime. Worrying about “America’s image in the world” potentially gets in the way of national security officials doing their constitutionally mandated duties. Specifically, it might cause them to pull punches in interrogating HVTs.

It’s time Democrats, especially this wet-behind-the-ears president, understood that they serve the American people first, not the European elitist snobs. It’s time Democrats learned that the least of their worries are Tea Party attending Kentuckians who believe in the Constitution. It’s time Democrats learned that military people returning from Iraq or Afghanistan aren’t potential terrorists.

In short, it’s time that Democrats stop living in the soft puffy world that they’re currently living in. I’ll close with Mr. Warner’s closing paragraph because it’s a great summation:

President Pantywaist’s recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America’s enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

I won’t say that President Obama hates America. I’m perfectly comfortable, though, saying that President Obama’s first priority isn’t putting the United States’ interests first.

It isn’t a stretch to say that President Obama’s plan of restoring America’s image in the world is off to a bumpy start.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

We now know the price to be paid for President Obama’s inaction with the Somali pirates. We know because they’ve hijacked another boat, this time capturing another 16 hostages:

Pirates captured a U.S.-owned and Italian-flagged tugboat with 16 crew including 10 Italians on Saturday in the latest hijacking in the busy Gulf of Aden.

“We can confirm that 10 Italians were kidnapped but we have no further details,” an Italian foreign ministry official said.

Andrew Mwangura, of the Mombasa-based East African Seafarers’ Assistance Programme, said the crew were believed to be unharmed on the tugboat, which he added was operated from the United Arab Emirates. He said the tugboat was towing two barges at the time of capture but there were no details on their cargo. “This incident shows the pirates are becoming more daring and violent,” Mwangura told Reuters by phone.

Why shouldn’t they be daring? It’s not like President Carter Obama will do anything to strike fear in their hearts.

Had this happened under either President Bush, the response would’ve been predictable, swift and violent. They would’ve made examples of the pirates plying the waters, then they would’ve literally struck them where they live.

Doing nothing and hoping the problem disappears isn’t a policy. It’s a disaster waiting to happen. This is what happens when people elect someone who hasn’t had time to think military strategies through. This is what happens when the commander-in-chief is reluctant to trust his officers.

That’s why experienced foreign policy and national security experts think the Obama administration will be as ineffective and timid as the Carter administration. Based on what’s happened thus far, there’s no reason for them to change their minds.

Ed’s analysis is right on the money:

This emphasizes the need to react swiftly, using the full might of our power, when piracy arises. In a real sense, this is asymmetrical warfare, only with a profit motive rather than theological extremism pushing it. If we scale down our response to the same level as theirs, or incrementally rather than overwhelmingly higher, then we play on their ground and not ours. If we expect to have a realistic deterrent in our navy, then we have to allow them to unleash their full fury on the pirates, all of the pirates, when they dare to attack American shipping, and Western shipping in general.

The principle behind using overwhelming force in this situation is simple: Hitting the pirates and their home bases ups the ante. It tells them that for every cost they inflict on us, we’ll inflict five times as much on them. Let’s see how long they want to play under those terms.

The price for their piracy thus far has been minimal to nonexistent. It isn’t dissimilar to southwest companies hiring illegal immigrants because they represented cheap labor. When raids were increased on those companies, the hiring of illegal aliens died because they no longer represented cheap labor anymore.

These pirates haven’t paid a heavy price yet. How will they react if there’s an actual cost in terms of blood and treasure? Perhaps they’d be brave enough to continue. If they were brave and we had a real commander-in-chief, a real commander-in-chief would give a simple order: As long as they attempt ship hijackings, their ships and their villages will get turned into rubble.

It’s a shame we don’t have a real commander-in-chief. It’s a crying shame they didn’t get the memo that nobody messes with our VP.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

According to this BBC article, it only took 60 days for President Obama’s plan to abandon Afghanistan surfaced:

“What we’re looking for is a comprehensive strategy [for Afghanistan],” President Obama told the CBS programme 60 Minutes on Sunday. “There’s got to be an exit strategy. There’s got to be a sense that this is not a perpetual drift.”

WRONG MOOSEBREATH!!! There’s got to be a sense of perpetual vigilance and perpetual focus. That comes from this simple strategy: We win. They get annihilated. Anything less is unacceptable.

Then-Sen. Obama spent the campaign telling audiences that Iraq was a mistake because “it diverted resources away” from “the real war on terror” in Afghanistan.

Exit strategies are for those who want to fight halfheartedly. It’s a strategy if you’re content with one Vietnam-like engagement after another. That’s a strategy for losers. That strategy’s only been used by Democrats.

I’m sure liberals will talk about this point in the Powell Doctrine:

Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

There’s only one problem with citing only this portion of the Powell Doctrine: it’s citing only one part of a much bigger doctrine:

  • Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  • Do we have a clear attainable objective?
  • Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  • Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  • Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  • Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  • Is the action supported by the American people?
  • Do we have genuine broad international support?

It’s amazing how quickly things change when exit strategy is put into context. Put in its proper context, it’s more likely a warning against fighting without a plan or the intent of winning. It certainly doesn’t imply setting timetables for withdrawal. It’s shameful to think of it as a rationalization for abandoning a valiant ally like Hamid Karzai.

Thus far, I’d sum up President Obama’s foreign policy actions like this:

Court our enemies and abandon our allies.

In other words, a Jimmy Carter repeat. Those of us who were of voting age remember how ineffective those policies were.

Mr Obama, who last month ordered the deployment of an additional 17,000 US troops to Afghanistan, acknowledged that military force alone would not be enough to achieve Washington’s objectives, which included the defeat of Taleban and al-Qaeda militants.

Military force won’t rebuild Afghanistan but rebuilding Afghanistan isn’t possible until we’ve annihilated the Taliban and al-Qa’ida. If there’s a lesson learned in Iraq that must be transferred to Afghanistan, it’s that it’s imperative to dramatically improve security on the ground if we’re serious about rebuilding.

Thus far, that concept seems lost on the Obama administration.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

I’ve never hidden the fact that I don’t think highly of Rep. Jim McDermott, especially after his trip to Baghdad right before the war started. Let’s recall that Rep. McDermott said that he’d trust Saddam Hussein more than he’d trust President Bush:

The controversy ignited on September 29 when Bonior and McDermott appeared from Baghdad on ABC’s “This Week.” Host George Stephanopoulos asked McDermott about his recent comment that “the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war.”

McDermott didn’t backpedal at all: “I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation…It would not surprise me if they came out with some information that is not provable, and they, they shift it. First they said it was al Qaeda, then they said it was weapons of mass destruction. Now they’re going back to and saying it’s al Qaeda again.” When Stephanopoulos pressed McDermott about whether he had any evidence that Bush had lied, the congressman replied, “I think the president would mislead the American people.”

An American official floating unsubstantiated allegations against an American president during a visit to Baghdad would be troubling enough. But McDermott compounded his problem by insisting, despite its twelve years of verifiable prevarication, that the Iraqi regime should be given the benefit of the doubt on inspections and disarmament. Said McDermott on “This Week”: “I think you have to take the Iraqis on their face value.”

In Rep. McDermott’s mind, Saddam deserved “the benefit of the doubt” but it wouldn’t surprise Rep. McDermott if President Bush misled “the American people” to take us to war.

That’s awful on its own but it isn’t the only stain on Rep. McDermott’s thin record. Other than consistently seeing the United State through a hostile lens, what has Seattle’s Congressman-for-Life done?

Steve Beren’s campaign has a summary of what he’s been about this session:

Jim McDermott and his fellow Democrats took control of congress in 2006 with claims to a mandate and big promises, but the latest (May 20) Rasmussen survey found that voters have a very, very low opinion of congress. Excerpts from the report follow:

“Just 13% give the national legislature good or excellent ratings, while 47% say it is doing a poor job…Over half of Republicans (58%) say congress is doing a poor job. That number has dropped slightly over the past month. Just 31% of Democrats give cngress poor ratings. That number has increased slightly over the past month… Just 12% of voters think congress has passed legislation to improve life in America within the past year. Most (61%) disagree and say congress has done nothing to improve life throughout the nation. Voters have little hope for the near future. Just 37% think it is even somewhat likely that congress will seriously address important problems in the next six months. Most (56%) say that congress is unlikely to face up to the issues of the day. Seventy-one percent (71%) think Members of congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers than helping people. Just 14% disagree.”

That’s congress for you. That’s the Democrats. That’s McDermott’s congress: failure, disappointment, nothing to improve the nation, not facing up to the issues of the day, more interested in his own political career than helping people. That’s McDermott, and that’s McDermott’s congress.

There’s a reason why Congress’s approval rating is lower than President Bush’s approval rating. The Democratic leadership has worked hard to ‘earn’ the reputation of being a do almost nothing congress. Their first year, their list of accomplishments was that they got a minimum wage bill passed. I noted at the time that that’s only because they attached it to the Iraq War supplemental bill and while they included tax cut for small businesses. It’s also worth noting that the Iraq War supplemental passed moths after President Bush proposed it.

Another ‘accomplishment’ of this ‘Do Almost Nothing Congress’ is their letting the Patriot Act lapse, thereby blinding our intelligence agencies to huge amounts of intelligence. If terrorists hit us in the United States, the blood will be directly on the Democrats’ hands.

Rep. McDermott has advocated single-payer universal health care, something that even its advocates say has its faults. Here’s what an AMSA study said about single-payer:

Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:

  • Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
  • Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
  • Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
  • Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
  • There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.

Removing the profit motive for health care, or anything else for that matter, and that product will stop getting produced in a heartbeat. I’ll bet the ranch on that. AMSA says that “the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs” is a positive, then notes that “the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development.” COULD lead to a “reduction in overall research and development”???

This is what Rep. McDermott’s been pushing as long as I’ve seen him in the House or Representatives. It’s a system with serious flaws. It hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried.

Jim McDermott’s list of accomplishments is almost as thin as Barack Obama’s, which is saying something considering Sen. Obama has been in the Senate 17 less years than has Rep. McDermott. It’s time for Seattle voters to ask the question whether they want someone who’s done next to nothing to continue representing them or if they’d rather have someone with a positive agenda representing them. If they want someone who’ll actually get positive things done, then that eliminates Rep. McDermott from consideration.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

When John F. Kerry writes an op-ed, fisking it is extremely easy. This time is no different. It doesn’t take long before spotting Senn. Kerry’s first false premise:

When Bush accused “some”, including Obama, Bush aides explained, of “the false comfort of appeasement,” McCain echoed this slander. “What does he want to talk about with [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad?” McCain asked, fumbling to link Obama to the Iranian president’s hateful words. Soon, a GOP talking point was born.

Lost in the rhetoric was the question America deserves to have answered: Why should we engage with Iran?

In short, not talking to Iran has failed. Miserably.

First off, people have talked with Iran. That’s what’s “failed. Miserably.” Secondly, we knkow that terrorists think that Americans are paper tigers. At least, they used to think that during the Clinton administration. They didn’t think twice during Jimmy Carter’s administration, either. Apparently, Sen. Kerry still hasn’t learned the principles behind the Reagan Principle.

The Reagan Principle is what I call President Reagan’s habit of not negotiating with evil empires until that evil empire was scared out of its wits. Sen. Kerry obviously didn’t remember that Reagan didn’t have a summit with the Soviets until his second term. Reagan’s not having a conversation with the Soviets didn’t seem to turn out too badly.

Bush engages in self-deception arguing that not engaging Iran has worked. In fact, Iran has grown stronger: continuing to master the nuclear fuel cycle; arming militias in Iraq and Lebanon; bolstering extremist anti-Israeli proxies. It has embraced Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and spends lavishly to rebuild Afghanistan, gaining influence across the region.

Sen. Kerry says that President Bush “Iran has grown stronger” because of President Bush’s not sitting down with Ahmadinejad. While it’s true that Iran is stronger than it was 4 years ago, that doesn’t prove that it’s a result of President bush not having a summit with Ahmadinejad. In fact, I’d suggest that Sen. Kerry can’t prove that meeting with Ahmadinejad wouldn’t have more disastrous consequences than not meeting with him.

In fadct, Sen. Kerry should study this history lesson about JFK and Kruschev:

MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Vice President, according to news dispatches Soviet Premier Khrushchev said today that Prime Minister Macmillan had assured him that there would be a summit conference next year after the presidential elections. Have you given any cause for such assurance, and do you consider it desirable or even possible that there would be a summit conference next year if Mr. Khrushchev persists in the conditions he’s laid down?

MR. NIXON: No, of course I haven’t talked to Prime Minister Macmillan. It would not be appropriate for me to do so. The President is still going to be president for the next four months and he, of course, is the only one who could commit this country in this period. As far as a summit conference is concerned, I want to make my position absolutely clear. I would be willing as president to meet with Mr. Khrushchev or any other world leader if it would serve the cause of peace. I would not be able wou- would be willing to meet with him however, unless there were preparations for that conference which would give us some reasonable certainty, some reasonable certainty, that you were going to have some success. We must not build up the hopes of the world and then dash them as was the case in Paris. There, Mr. Khrushchev came to that conference determined to break it up. He was going to break it up because he would, knew that he wasn’t going to get his way on Berlin and on the other key matters with which he was concerned at the Paris Conference. Now, if we’re going to have another summit conference, there must be negotiations at the diplomatic level, the ambassadors, the Secretaries of State, and others at that level, prior to that time, which will delineate the issues and which will prepare the way for the heads of state to meet and make some progress. Otherwise, if we find the heads of state meeting and not making progress, we will find that the cause of peace will have been hurt rather than helped. So under these circumstances, I, therefore, strongly urge and I will strongly hold, if I have the opportunity to urge or to hold, this position: that any summit conference would be gone into only after the most careful preparation and only after Mr. Khrushchev, after his disgraceful conduct at Paris, after his disgraceful conduct at the United Nations, gave some assurance that he really wanted to sit down and talk and to accomplish something and not just to make propaganda.

Here’s JFK’s response to Nixon’s answer:

MR. KENNEDY: I have no disagreement with the Vice President’s position on that. It, my view is the same as his. Let me say there is only one uh, point I would add. That before we go into the summit, before we ever meet again, I think it’s important that the United States build its strength; that it build its military strength as well as its own economic strength. If we negotiate from a position where the power balance or wave is moving away from us, it’s extremely difficult to reach a successful decision on Berlin as well as the other questions.

Nixon and JFK seemed show that they shouldn’t meet with Kruschev without there first being preparations done at the ambassador and SecState levels. It appears as though Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain didn’t learn that lesson. I’d suggest that they both learn history better if they’re going to deal with a hostile world.

One lesson that liberals apparently haven’t learned from the 1990’s is that talking with Iraq allowed them to bribe foreign ‘dignitaries’ with the OFF money. Clinton kept on issuing threats, followed by Saddam making a token gesture, followed by his not obeying the latest UNSC resolution. Some good talking with Saddam did.

We also know that talking and negotiating with the North Koreans didn’t prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons.

If talking with our enemies is the be-all, end-all, then the UN should be Utopia. It isn’t. It’s a festering sewer of corruption and inaction. It’s a joke to serious diplomats and statesmen.

Here’s something that must be answered:

Direct negotiations may be the only means short of war that can persuade Iran to forgo its nuclear capability. Given that a nuclear Iran would menace Israel, drive oil prices up past today’s record highs and possibly spark a regional arms race, shouldn’t we be doing all we can to avoid that conflagration?

Ahmadinejad is this century’s Hitler. What makes anyone think that anything but military strikes will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Here’s what President Bush rightly said to the Knesset:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is, the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

What “ingenious argument” would Sen. Obama or Sen. Kerry use to persuade Iran that they’re heading down the wrong path? Taking a pacifist’s approach is the best path to a peaceful world is the path that arrogant men take. History has proven that approach to be a fool’s approach.

During the Reagan administration, Sen. Kerry said that installing the Pershing II missiles in Europe and developing SDI would lead to a dangerous escalation in the Cold War. Eight years later, the Soviet Union had crumbled just like the Berlin Wall had been torn down.

It’s obvious that Sen. Kerry will still stay on the wrong side of history because he hasn’t learned from history. That isn’t just stupid, it’s insanity.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Joe Lieberman’s op-ed in this morning’s WSJ is a study in contrasts. Sen. Lieberman’s op-ed starts with him alluding to the muscular foreign policy of FDR, Truman and JFK. Here’s what Sen. Lieberman said about those men’s foreign policy credentials:

This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.

This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that “it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.”

And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would “pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom.”

It’s unfortunate that the Democratic Party doesn’t stand for those principles anymore. JFK’s “we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom” has been replaced by ‘The war is lost’, “there is no military solution” and let’s talk with Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinejad‘. Sen. Lieberman pinpoints when things started going downhill for the Democratic Party:

This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and “inordinate fear of communism” represented the real threat to world peace.

It argued that the Soviets and their allies were our enemies not because they were inspired by a totalitarian ideology fundamentally hostile to our way of life, or because they nursed ambitions of global conquest. Rather, the Soviets were our enemy because we had provoked them, because we threatened them, and because we failed to sit down and accord them the respect they deserved. In other words, the Cold War was mostly America’s fault.

Starting in the late Sixties, the Democratic Party was dominated by pacifists like McGovern and Carter, Clinton and Kerry. In essence, they became the party ‘every burden is too heavy, every challenge too difficult, every enemy too time-consuming.’

The saddest thing is that they’re on the verge of nominating someone who is both utterly clueless about foreign policy and a pacifist. Sen. Obama has said that he isn’t against all wars, that he’s just against this war. Why should we believe him? What proof do we have of that? Nothing in his actions says that he’s prepared to take the fight to our enemies.

God help us if we elect a pacifist during wartime, especially this pacifist.

It’s worth noting that Obama won’t give our intelligence agencies the tools they need to prevent future terrorist attacks:

I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people – we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law.

“We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties. That is why I am proud to cosponsor several amendments that protect our privacy while making sure we have the power to track down and take out terrorists.

“This Administration continues to use a politics of fear to advance a political agenda. It is time for this politics of fear to end. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry. We are trying to ensure that we don’t sacrifice our liberty in pursuit of security, and it is past time for the Administration to join us in that effort.”

In other words, he won’t give immunity to the telecommunications companies that help gather surveillance. If these telecommunications companies don’t get some sort of protection, then they’ll refuse to help us.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party’s left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.

As the saying goes, anyone who isn’t willing to stand up to crazies won’t stand up to militant crazies like Chavez and Ahmadinejad.

It’s sad to see Democrats cave into the wishes of the MoveOn crazies. They used to have a spine. They’ve traded in that spine for a cash cow. True to recent history, Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Yesterday, I predicted that Democrats would throw a hissy fit over President Bush’s statement. Here’s what I said yesterday:

President Bush warned in an interview Tuesday that the Democratic presidential candidates’ plans to withdraw abruptly from Iraq could “eventually lead to another attack on the United States” and would “embolden” terrorists.

In a White House interview with Politico and Yahoo News, a president’s first for an online audience, Bush said his doomsday scenario for a premature withdrawal “of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.”

“The United States pulling out of Iraq or pulling out of the Middle East or not maintaining a forward presence would send all kinds of signals throughout the Middle East,” he said in the Roosevelt Room. “And it would shake everybody’s nerves, and it would embolden the very same people that we’re trying to defeat.

Now Nancy Pelosi is saying that his comments are “beneath the dignity of the office.”

Referring to Sen. John McCain, Pelosi said: “I would hope that any serious person that aspires to lead the country, would disassociate themselves from those comments.”

As Pelosi was speaking, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel issued a statement in which he said: “The tradition has always been that when a U.S. president is overseas, partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. President Bush has now taken that principle and turned it on its head: for this White House, partisan politics now begins at the water’s edge, no matter the seriousness and gravity of the occasion. Does the president have no shame?”

In other words, President Bush nailed the Democrats right where it hurts. What’s worse is that Rep. Emanuel is being a hypocrite. If politics stops at the water’s edge, then why are Democrats playing politics with funding the Iraq war to appease the lunatics in their party?

If US politics end at the water’s edge, then what were Democratic Whip David Boniors and Rep. Jim McDermott doing in Baghdad right before the war? Rahm Emanuel would be wise to remember that Rep. McDermott said that he’d trust Saddam more than he trusts President Bush.

If US politics end at the water’s edge, then what was Nancy Pelosi doing during her trip to Syria? Let me rephrase: What was Nancy Pelosi doing during her trip to Syria other than lying about Israel’s desire to restart talks with Syria? Did she think that the Speaker of the House was part of the Executive Branch? She must’ve thought that because she obviously thought she was the SecState.

To be blunt, Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi’s comments are contemptible and dishonest.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

People have been talking about Sen. Obama’s wrapping up the Democratic nomination all day. That’s fair enough. That’s news. With his virtual clinching of the nomination, talk about his ties to Jeremiah Wright have temporarily subsided. The good news for Republicans is that Sen. Obama hasn’t left us with a shortage of things to ridicule him about. Let’s consider what he said in his victory speech Tuesday night:

The other side can label and name-call all they want, but I trust the American people to recognize that it is not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after Al Qaida’s leaders.

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.

What on God’s green earth is Sen. Obama yapping about? When did Truman and FDR meet with Hitler or Tojo? I’ve heard about revisionist history before but this is ridiculous.

Only a blithering idiot would try justifying meeting with Ahmedinejad by saying that FDR met with that era’s equivalent of Ahmedinejad. Someone that’s either that intellectually dishonest or that intellectually vacant isn’t qualified to be the leader of the free world.

I’d further say that anyone who thinks that reneging on our commitments to our Iraqi allies is smart policy, especially after they’ve met 12 of the 18 benchmarks, isn’t qualified to be the next commander-in-chief. In fact, I’d say he sounds like the next Jimmy Carter. Thanks to recorded history, we can state with total confidence that Carter’s administration was a disaster on foreign policy.

Frankly, I hope that John McCain picks fights with Sen. Obama on foreign policy. It’s the onl area where the starkest contrast exists. If I was John McCain’s advisor, I’d tell him to draw comparisons between Sen. Obama’s policy of talking with Ahmedinejad and Carter’s calling Ayatollah Khomeini a fellow man of faith. I’d point out that Obama’s policy of talking to genocidal monsters like Ahmedinejad is proof of Obama’s pacifism. I’d further point out that Obama’s pacifism is just as dangerous now as Jimmy Carter’s pacifism was dangerous in 1979-80.

I’d also tell McCain to pound the issue of judicial nominations, especially after Obama’s statement yesterday:

In response, Obama’s campaign said McCain would pick judges who would threaten abortion rights as well as McCain’s own campaign finance reform bill.

“What’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves,” Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

Someone should tell Vietor’s boss that appellate court judges are supposed to rule on the constitutionality of cases, not act as an unaccountable superlegislature. If a group of people need protecting, then it’s Congress’ job to craft legislation that protects people.

Finally, I’d make sure that people knew how radical Barack Obama’s views are. I’d start by asking him if appellate court judges have a greater responsibility to the Constitution than to any person. I’d ask if our commander-in-chief had a greater responsibility to keeping America safe or in making America popular in the eyes of the world.

The truth is that Barack Obama isn’t qualified to be president. His foreign policy is dangerous, which we can’t afford in these troubled times.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

One of the biggest reasons why I’m an unabashed Fred supporter is because Fred’s the only person capable of explaining why we need to take terrorism, and Iran, seriousl. Fred’s also the only candidate who (a) understands the entitlement crisis and (b) has a plan to reform entitlements. Fred’s also the man with the credibility and resolve to stop illegal immigration in its tracks.

Fred’s plan for topping Iran’s mullahs is to establish the equivalent of Reagan’s Radio Free Europe. Though RFE existed long before Reagan took office, it wasn’t the effective tool it should’ve been. Reagan hired people who were familiar with the culture, not just people who could speak the language. Reagan also did away with the ‘don’t offend somebody’ diplomats that didn’t preach the message of freedom.

Fred’s idea for toppling the mullahs is to preach a message of hope, optimism and freedom to the oppressed Iranian citizenry. The idea is to tell them that we’ll stand with them as they topple their mullahs.

Needless to say, Fred’s the only candidate who’s devised a detailed plan for Iran.

Another major item on Fred’s agenda is reforming Social Security and Medicare. During the Des Moines Register/Schoolmarm debate, Fred said that “We need to tell the Warren Buffetts that” we can’t afford to give them medicare benefits. Fred’s plan to fix Social Security is to tie COLAs to inflation, not wage increases.

Again, Fred’s the only candidate who’s thought things through enough to put a proposal together.

When Fred talks immigration, his message is simple: We need high fences and wide gates. High walls to control the border, wide gates to be legal immigrant friendly. His other points of emphasis on immigration are that we need to penalize businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and we need to enforce the laws already in existence.

The difference between Fred on immigration and McCain and Romney is that Fred’s done nothing to tarnish his credibility on the matter.

Fred enthusiastically supported the Bush tax cuts from the beginning, again unlike McCain and Romney. Romney now champions the Bush tax cuts but he was for raising the federal gas tax in 2003.
Fred’s a lifelong believer in strict constructionist judges. The mad advising him on judicial matters is David McIntosh, who founded the Federalist Society. It’s easy to picture Mitt Romney picking another David Souter. It’s easy to picture John McCain picking another Sandra Day O’Connor. YUCK!!! NO THANKS!!! When it comes to picking judges, Fred’s the real deal. There won’t be any Souters or O’Connors nominated by a Thompson administration. There’ll be lots of nominees in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Michael Luttig.

Finally, Fred’s fond of saying that “I was a conservative yesterday, I’m a conservative today and I’ll be a conservative tomorrow.” You certainly can’t say that about either Romney, McCain or Huckabee.

Isn’t it time we picked the best? That means Fred Thompson, not a pretender conservative.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Today’s assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is a horrifying reminder that Islamic extremists want to impose their warped political views on Western civilization.

Bhutto’s assassination is proof that the extremists’ ideology knows no geographic boundaries. They seek to impose their will throughout the world, whether it’s New York City, London, Tel Aviv, Bali, Madrid or Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Ms Bhutto had just addressed an election rally in Rawalpindi when she was shot in the neck by a gunman who then set off a bomb. At least 16 other people died in the attack and several more were injured.

President Pervez Musharraf condemned the killing and urged people to remain calm so that the “nefarious designs of terrorists can be defeated.”

This is proof that there’s only one way to deal with these extremists. For months, Pervez Musharraf necessarily walked a tightrope with the extremists. This assassination should be the end of that tightrope walk. It’s time for Musharraf to eliminate the extremists.

Technorati: , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative