Archive for the ‘Iraq’ Category

Winning The War (Not In Obama’s Gameplan)

July 30, 2008

The continued drive by many on the left and in the media to bring about an American retreat in Iraq has given rise to a whole gamut of emotions in me over the past few months, ranging from bewilderment and frustration to anger. The shortsightedness and lack of vision in people like Barack Obama and many in the media lead one to question their intelligence, their motives and their patriotism. Let us not forget, that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not started on the whims of a war-president. America was forced into taking up the fight against Islamic extremism and those who sponsored world-wide terror by the acts of her enemies – a fight that the United States should have begun many years earlier.

It is refreshing to read journalists such as Christopher Hitchens continuing to provide an untainted, ‘un-anti-American” (clearly far removed from the daily offerings of many in the American media) view on the necessity of the war against Islamic extremism and the success of the troops.

Hitchens’ latest article, The War Between the Wars, at Slate.com argues that we should be fighting Islamic extremism wherever it is in the world and that America and its allies are capable of taking on its enemies at more that one place at a time. It is Hitchens at his best and I only hope McCain and his team can stick to their guns on this issue and remind the American public of the serious consequences of Obama’s plan to run with our tails between our legs.

I like Hitchens’ argument against Obama’s and the left in general that two wars (in Afghanistan and Iraq) cannot be fought at once… (I have put some choice words in bold)

“…any attempt to play off the two wars against each other is little more than a small-minded and zero-sum exercise. And consider the implications. Most people appear now to believe that it is quite wrong to mention Saddam Hussein even in the same breath as either a) weapons of mass destruction or b) state-sponsored terrorism. I happen to disagree, but just for an experiment, let us imagine that some regime did exist or did arise that posed such a combination of threats. (Actually, so feverish is my imagination that I can even think of one whose name also begins with I.) Would we be bound to say, in public and in advance, that the Western alliance couldn’t get around to confronting such a threat until it had Afghanistan well under control? This would be rather like the equivalent fallacy that nothing can be done in the region until there is a settlement of the Israel-Palestine dispute. Not only does this mean that every rogue in the region can reset his timeline until one of the world’s oldest and most intractable quarrels is settled, it also means that every rogue has an incentive to make certain that no such settlement can ever occur. (Which is, of course, why Saddam threw, and now the Iranians throw, their support to the suicide-murderers.)

Maybe Obama should take note of the following before he provides more comfort to our foes with his plans…

“If it is true, as yesterday’s three-decker front-page headline in the New York Times had it, that “U.S. Considering Stepping Up Pace of Iraq Pullout/ Fall in Violence Cited/ More Troops Could Be Freed for Operations in Afghanistan,” then this can only be because al-Qaida in Iraq has been subjected to a battlefield defeat at our hands—a military defeat accompanied by a political humiliation in which its fanatics have been angrily repudiated by the very people they falsely claimed to be fighting for. ”

If we had left Iraq according to the timetable of the anti-war movement, the situation would be the precise reverse: The Iraqi people would now be excruciatingly tyrannized by the gloating sadists of al-Qaida, who could further boast of having inflicted a battlefield defeat on the United States. I dare say the word of that would have spread to Afghanistan fast enough and, indeed, to other places where the enemy operates.”

Hitchens finishes his above-quoted conclusion with these words of warning for the left and Obama…

“Bear this in mind next time you hear any easy talk about “the hunt for the real enemy” or any loose babble that suggests that we can only confront our foes in one place at a time.”

Unfortunately, Obama and his fans fail to see the significance of this fight against Islamic extremism. The significance for the future of our civilisation. Obama sees the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan as part of his political game. They are much more important than that.

McCain has always said he puts America first, before his own individual success. This has been clear from his outstanding career where integrity, honesty and loyalty were the foundation of his life. America has to remember this come election day.

Glib remarks from Obama that give his followers a superficial ‘warm fuzzy’ will come back haunt Americans should they choose to elect him – at no time will this be more haunting than when our troops are retreating and the enemy is celebrating on the streets of the cities in Iraq (assuming Obama sticks to his promise of surrendering in 16 months – he is already showing signs of the liberal flip-flop, so who knows?).

Olbermann’s Insanity

May 15, 2008

Tonight, Keith Olbermann on his ‘show’ on MSNBC took the opportunity to offer another ‘special’ comment to the nation – actually, the few hundred thousand viewers of his programme. Most of his special comments take the form of a raging attack on President Bush and tend to side with the Jihadists and any other anti-American group/country/individuals. Today’s effort was no exception.

Olbermann criticised American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, denouncing the American-led Coalition as being “cold-blooded” killers and accusing Americans of being war criminals. He felt President Bush was being dishonest when he mentioned that the Jihadists would prefer a Democrat as President – this is not speculation, it is clearly true. The Dems want to retreat and wave the white flag of surrender… both candidates have promised they will pull out the troops as soon as they become President. Olbermann was incensed at the idea that the extremists might attack the United States again – he seems to have fallen for the wishy-washy rhetoric of those living in the liberal bubble. That is, America is only attacked becasue of Bush’s policies. In his minute mind, if we pull out of Iraq and stop attacking the terrorists, they will love us and never harm Western civilisation again. Yes, Keith, and the Big Bad Wolf lived happily ever after with Little Red Riding Hood.

Olbermann accuses Bush of lying but in almost the same breath labels John McCain as Bush’s twin – clearly disregarding what his own cable network has been broadcasting for the past 7 years… McCain’s displeasure with Rumsfeld and certain planks of the Bush policies.

Olbermann, in his selfish little world, surrounded by yes-people, is guilty of many of the charges he levels at Bush, most of which involve dishonesty. He believes he knows what’s best for the American voter and so he ignores the extremist views of Barack and Michelle Obama, and their confidants, he belittles Hillary Clinton’s triumphs against the O-man, and he treats McCain with contempt. Olbermann lost the plot months ago. He seems to blame America for the world’s woes. We all know who he wants to win in the war on terror – it’s not the good guys.

Victory in Iraq

March 20, 2008

On the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq, President George W Bush gave a rousing and inspiring speech in defence of the war, laying out clearly, once again, the reasons for going to war and, more importantly at this moment in time, the reasons for continuing the fight against the forces of extremism.

The current successes in Iraq, owing much to John McCain’s surge theories, are grounds for hope that victory will come. Yet, at this crucial stage in the war, when the Coalition forces have the upper hand, some are calling for retreat and surrender. One of the few clear planks in Barack Obama’s otherwise virtually empty manifesto is to surrender in Iraq and leave the extremists celebrating victory over the United States and its Allies. Bush refers to politicians such as Obama in today’s speech, “The successes we are seeing in Iraq are undeniable — yet some in Washington still call for retreat.”

Obama likes to claim that the so-called experience of John McCain and Hillary Clinton led them to support an unjust war while his ‘better judgement’ made him oppose the war from the outset. Obama’s judgement conveniently ignores key facts about Saddam Hussein’s regime. Facts that Bush highlighted in today’s speech…

“Because we acted, Saddam Hussein no longer fills fields with the remains of innocent men, women and children. Because we acted, Saddam’s torture chambers and rape rooms and children’s prisons have been closed for good. Because we acted, Saddam’s regime is no longer invading its neighbors or attacking them with chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. Because we acted, Saddam’s regime is no longer paying the families of suicide bombers in the Holy Land. Because we acted, Saddam’s regime is no longer shooting at American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones and defying the will of the United Nations. Because we acted, the world is better and United States of America is safer.”

Barack Obama’s judgement would have allowed Saddam Hussein to continue to act against the interests of the free world. Obama lives in the liberal bubble, along with many in the media and many Democrats in general – a bubble that seems to be cut off from the real world and one that will be burst when the next attack on the USA occurs. These bubble-inhabitants deny that 9/11 changed the world and appear oblivious to the danger that will arise if Coalition forces retreat from the battle with extremists in the Middle East.

Obama’s willingness to accept defeat in Iraq, when, to any strategist with any foresight, victory for the USA is the only acceptable outcome for the safety of the US and the free world, coupled with his ongoing support for his racist, America-hating pastor, Rev. Wright, will only weaken his hand as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. the war may not be popular but it is essential.

On voting day, most Americans will realise that it will not be wise for them to elect a President who is happy to lead his country in retreat in the face of terror. On the contrary, the majority of Americans will vote for a Commander-in-Chief who will stand firm when confronted with extremists and who recognizes that we are in a battle for our civilisation. Al Qaeda is on the run and McCain is the man to chase them “to the gates of Hell.”

McCain realises, as Bush mentioned today, that no outcome except victory is acceptable in the war against the extremists.

President Bush concluded in his speech to military at the Pentagon, “The battle in Iraq is noble, it is necessary, and it is just. And with your courage, the battle in Iraq will end in victory.” Obama’s views undermine that war effort and give encouragement to the enemy. McCain, on the other hand, will support the efforts our troops are making, and will lead America and the Coalition towards a victory many on the left feel is impossible.

McCain’s Principled Stand For Democracy Leads to Endorsement By Kasparov

March 7, 2008

John McCain heavily criticized the farcical ‘elections’ in Russia this week, while his Democrat opponents, Clinton and Obama, only felt disappointment at the vote because it was not fully fair in their opinion. How spineless of the Democrats!

Obama has openly admitted he wants Americans to be able to travel the world and state with pride that they are American. Most Americans living outside of the liberal bubble do feel proud to be American even if there are some countries around the world where the US has a ‘bad’ reputation. Obama wants everybody to love America. How will he achieve this? He will wave the white flag of surrender in the war on terror, he will only express disappointment when democracy is savagely violated by aggressive dictators, he will have tea with the enemies of freedom, and he will put at risk everything America and its allies have fought so hard for since the Second World War.

I have news for Obama, Clinton and the rest of those people living in the bubble… mere popularity is not an ideal towards which any great and noble country should strive. Great leaders make difficult decisions based on guiding principles and beneficial outcomes – they do not change opinions with the winds of popularity nor do they follow the whims of the voters. The Presidency, or the leadership of any influential country, is not part of some American Idol-style competition where one has to choose a popular song/message in order to be a successful leader. Who cares if Americans are not popular in some parts of the world right now because of their noble stand in the war on terror? Do most Americans? I doubt it. Americans (and its allies, eg the Brits) are not popular with those who cannot see the long-term consequences of inaction – we can be proud of the fact that we are trying to protect the future for generations to come.

John McCain understands that fact. He has no qualms about criticizing Putin and wiould never retreat in any situation just to appease those Europeans who are anti-American. Freedom is much more important than being liked by everybody. Obama probably strived to be a ‘popular’ at school. You know the type of person I’m referring to… the person who never criticized anybody, who always agreed with whatever was the opinion à la mode, and who invited everyone to his birthday party.

In world terms, Obama’s attempts to appease all and to ‘make’ Americans popular would besmirch the country’s noble history and go some way towards turning it into a giant Switzerland. We know how tarnished the Swiss nation is as a result of its attempts to be popular with all sides in WW2.

Garry Kasparov represents the real world that Obama and the Democrats seem to ignore. He is courageously fighting tyranny and wanting assurances from the Presidential candidates that they will support the Russian people in their efforts to head back towards democracy. He stated in the Wall Street Journal …

“John McCain has been outspoken on behalf of democratic rights abroad, including Russia. Regardless of the doubts about Mr. McCain’s conservative credentials at home, the thought of him in the White House strikes fear into authoritarian leaders everywhere.”

Kasparov cannot repeat this belief for the Democratic candidates, fearing instead that, “The Russian ruling elite is rooting for Hillary Clinton,” while Obama is “largely, an unknown quantity.”

Kasparov knows the game is at a dangerous point. If America elected Clinton or Obama, the risk is that they would be mere pawns in Putin’s gambit to hold onto power and remove any chance for freedom for the Russian people. McCain, on the other hand, would battle for control of the board and in doing so would provide Kasparov with the opportunity of helping Russian democracy back on its feet – it would be Kasparov’s greatest move.

McCain Remains Only Hope For Victory

January 16, 2008

The Republican race is wide open according to many in the mainstream media. When one looks at the national polls, however, it is clear that there is one candidate ahead of all Republican candidates and one candidate who can beat any of the Democratic candidates head-to-head.

Who is the candidate? John McCain. Despite media hopes that his campaign would collapse, McCain’s guts have seen him hold on and remain a frontrunner. At the moment local politics (economic recession in Michigan) are clouding voters’ judgement. What is at stake here is more significant that individual States’ concerns. Those voters in Michigan who think that Romney would prioritise their needs should his farytale ever come true are seriously misguided.

Voters in these primaries should be concerned with America’s future first and foremost. If the country is safe and in good hands, then individual states can prosper. If the Islamic extremists gain the upper hand and sense weakness in the White House, and if the rest of the world loses respect for American strength, individual states will suffer.

All voters in South Carolina must be urged to vote for national and international reasons and not local politics. The next leader of the Free World will come from this batch of candidates.

John McCain is the only candidiate suitably qualified to lead the Free World in the fight against radical Islam, to protect America’s interests, and to look after the interests of the people. He has always acted for the good of his country. Personal profit is not a factor. His country’s prosperity remains his priority.

Rosie’s Blog’s Damning Evidence.

May 27, 2007

Much of the furore surrounding the Rosie O’Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselbeck verbal entanglement centred on the notion that O’Donnell had described the US troops as terrorists. A charge that O’Donnell denies and one on which she forced Hasselbeck to defend her (eventually) during the now infamous row.

It is ironic that O’Donnell’s own blogsite contains the following quotation – a transcript of a discussion in which the ‘terrorist’ description pops up…

 “Dated: 2007-05-23
Did Rosie Call Our Troops Terrorists?

The [sic] is directly from the transcripts of The View for May 17th:

O’DONNELL: …… I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?
HASSELBECK: Who are the terrorists?
O’DONNELL: 655,000 Iraqis — I’m saying you have to look, we invaded –
HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?
O’DONNELL: I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?
HASSELBECK: Are we killing their citizens or are their people also killing their citizens?  
O’DONNELL: We’re invading a sovereign nation, occupying a country against the U.N.”

Notice, O’Donnell refuses to answer Hasselbeck’s questions regarding clarifying her position on the identity of the terrorists in her opinion. It is clear from her initial statement (my bold) that she is implying that US troops are the terrorists. She is clever enough not to actually put those words in the same sentence but her implication is crystal clear. Hasselbeck gave her ample opportunity to clarify her postion – O’Donnell refused.

It is typical of O’Donnell that she tosses in the 650,000 figure for the amount of Iraqis killed and she even has a section for this stat on her blogsite. I say typical, because of course the number 650,000 is not based on any facts. It is fictitious. There is no proof. This does not deter O’Donnell from using it as if it were true to back up her argument.

It is equally bizarre that she would state that the US was acting against the UN while conveniently ignoring the fact that Hussein/Iraq had been acting in violation of the UN for over a decade. I hardly think the current massacres occuring in Iraq as a result of the fighting between rival Muslim groups is in accordance with the UN charter either – although the lack of action from the UN regarding Darfur might suggest otherwise.

The fact that O’Donnell’s own blog contained the incriminating evidence – and yet, O’Donnell’s people viewing the transcript through Rosie-tinted spectacles do not see it. This might explain why they don’t ‘get’ 9/11 or the War on Terror.