Archive for the ‘war’ Category

From a post on Jan 20th:

I remember Glenn Reynolds saying that the best part of the Democrats taking power is they will suddenly be willing to support the war on terror. Lets hope he is right.

I guess this was wrong as we see the cut and run left of the Bush administration suddenly deciding that Afghanistan is no longer the “good war”.

We are seeing posts like this:

No problem! The policy makers will find some way to get them there. Why at all send them to Afghanistan to die, why not recreate some ops. in mid-Manhattan and send them to their grave Mr. McChrystal? Or would that not be considered as dying for honor?

The title of that post was Wanted 40,000 more to die in Afghanistan is itself dishonest, but I don’t expect better.

It’s is just a bunch of Neo-cons:

Ignoring the overwhelming Democratic-voter opposition to the Afghanistan war threatens to cost Barack Obama the support of young people and anti-war voters who helped make him president. It could destroy any possibility of achieving his robust domestic agenda as well. President Obama needs an exit strategy instead of an escalation strategy.

It’s a graveyard I tell you:

From the time of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan to the British, Soviets and now the US and NATO, Afghanistan’s poppy fields, barren plains and rugged mountains are filled with the ghosts and treasuries of would-be conquerors. Sooner or later, America, Canada and NATO will meet the same dismal fate as everyone who went before them.

On Morning Joe they are united in calling it Vietnam.

And of course there is Newsweek:

One of history’s enduring lessons is that Afghans don’t appreciate it when outsiders tell them how to govern their affairs—just ask the British or the Soviets. U.S. success in overthrowing the Taliban seemed to suggest this lesson no longer applied, at least to Americans. That quickly proved an illusion.

I remember when liberal blogs were even insulted by the suggestion that they advocated withdrawal:

Yesterday on The O’Reilly Factor, former administration official Dan Senor told guest host John Kasich that “many leftist centered activists, political activists” — such as MoveOn.org — believe “we would be better off” if the United States withdrew from Afghanistan.

But when pressed by Kasich, Senor couldn’t name any progressives who have advocated pulling out from Afghanistan and admitted that MoveOn.org has called for withdrawal from Iraq, not Afghanistan.

Doesn’t anyone remember what democrats were saying just one year ago?

Al Qaeda in Afghanistan:

Obama on Afghanistan

During the Debates:

Ya think we (as in the country) might have bought a candidate and a party that might not have meant what they said?

We always get the government we deserve

The wonderful memories:

September 2007

But Clinton not only couldn’t bring herself to criticize it, she also attacked Petraeus’ honesty: “The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,” she huffed to the general Tuesday.

And she slammed him (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker) as “de facto spokesmen for a failed policy,” pointedly refusing to criticize the ad – which called him an outright liar who’d “betray” his nation.

Sept 2009:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed back against the US military’s blunt warning that the battle against insurgents in Afghanistan would likely be lost within a year without more US troops.

Clinton’s comments in an interview with PBS television late Monday came amid reports that the Pentagon has asked General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, to delay a request for more troops.

Clinton expressed “respect” for McChrystal’s assessment that the United States would likely lose the war in Afghanistan within a year without more US forces.

“But I can only tell you there are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counter-insurgencies that are the exact opposite,”

Well at least she said it with a bit less venom.

Let’s hope this president gives Mrs. Clinton opinion the same weight that it was given the last time.

What is this thing with generals? Next thing you know she will be going after General Hospital.

The real sad thing is the politics of it all:

There’s this anonymous quote from one observer: “He can send more troops and it will be a disaster and he will destroy the Democratic party. Or he can send no more troops and it will be a disaster and the Republicans will say he lost the war.” Isn’t this extraordinary? Obama will roil the Democratic party by sending more troops to fight the war that Democrats have said for years is the “necessary war” (in Obama’s words), the central war in the fight against terror, etc., etc. It’s hard to imagine a starker demonstration of bad faith on an important issue of national security.

No sign of the idea of WINNING the “formerly necessary war“! Maybe they didn’t mean it. It was so bad like that on Morning Joe where they were saying the problem was the people stuck on the idea of winning I had to change the channel.

That’s liberals for you. Pass Obamacare and put the cost on our children and grandchildren, Concede defeat and pass the danger and the risks on to our children and grandchildren.

It is for this reason more than any other that Glenn Beck is all wet when it comes to McCain v Obama. He might have been poor on domestic issues but he damn well wouldn’t sell out the country when it comes to the war. We wouldn’t have to worry about defense being ignored period.

2010 & 2012 can’t come soon enough for me.

Update: I’ll wager Baldilocks would have given anything to not be able to take this victory lap

…was in charge of Iraqi airspace in 1981?

Answer: Either George Bush would have been fighting a Nuclear Iraq ten years later OR

Saddam would be in power and in charge of Kuwait (and maybe Saudi Arabia) as we speak.

And that is the Best case Scenario!

Exit question: If Carter had won in 1980 and retained Brzezinski would the same result as above have taken place even without airspace control? In fact would we be talking about the upcoming 20th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall? Inquiring minds like Rush Limbaugh honorary lizzardoid want to know!

(Sorry Mika I know it’s your dad but that’s just the way it is.)

In a mostly self serving story at the Washington post (despite the title) worrying about an Israeli strike on Iran, Jackson Diehl reports an important truth:

Between April 2001 and the end of 2008, 4,246 rockets and 4,180 mortar shells were fired into Israel from Gaza, killing 14 Israelis, wounding more than 400 and making life in southern Israel intolerable. During what was supposed to be a cease-fire during the last half of 2008, 362 rockets and shells landed. Meanwhile, between late 2000 and the end of 2008, Israeli forces killed some 3,000 Gazans.

Since April there have been just over two dozen rocket and mortar strikes — or less than on many single days before the war. No one has been seriously injured, and life in the Israeli town of Sderot and the area around it has returned almost to normal. Israeli attacks in Gaza have almost ceased, too: Since the end of the mini-war, 29 Palestinians, two of whom were civilians, have been killed by Israeli action.

These are basic facts and those facts add up to lives saved on both sides of the fence and more importantly regular lives that can be lived by real people.

This is why we who stand with Israel are proud of it and will continue to do so…

(unless they decide to do something really nasty like support Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh, Honorary Lizardoid then maybe Israel too can be proudly banned from lgf. It’s the last piece of the puzzle that the bloggers at lgf watch are waiting for before setting up their accounts.

Update: A Good sign Charles is still hitting the Saudi’s over Israel.

You mean the Saudis lied when they said they would stop participating in the Arab League boycott of Israel? Shocka!

As long as he keeps a grip on some reality there’s still hope and the LGF watch people will remain disapointed. Pollyanna lives!