Archive for the ‘war on terror’ 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?).

Advertisements

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.

Cheney: “So?” – Well said!

March 20, 2008

The media is up in arms at Vice-President Dick Cheney’s latest comments on the war in Iraq. The following dialogue took place during an interview with Martha Raddatz for ABC’s Good Morning America…

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.

RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.

CHENEY: So?

RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

The grand hoohaa has been over his use of the word “so?” in the sense of ‘so what?’ I do not see what the problem is. Great leaders the world over are not fussed by the views of the general public which change with the wind. I find it interesting that the left side with opinion polls and demand that the President act in way that would court popularity with the masses on the issue of war. The public are not in a position to make decisions about wartime tactics and strategies, and yet the media and the Democrats attack Bush and Cheney for not kowtowing to the whims of the people.

That is not how democracy works. We elect politicians to make those decisions. The media seem to want this war on terror to be waged based on quasi-referenda, that is opinion polls. If the democratic nations of Europe and North America were ruled based on the fluctuating views of the general population, most countries would have the death penalty, some form of repatriation for many minorities and civil rights for homosexuals would be non-existent.

Political leaders have to make decisions which are not necessarily popular. Considering most leaders are voted in with less than 50% of the vote (remember, many people do not even vote), it is hardly surprising that opinion polls consistently show low approval ratings for leaders in most countries in the free world.

Kudos to Cheney for once again saying what he thinks and sticking to his principles. In the upcoming Presidential election, the man of principle and integrity who will not back down just to curry favour with the electorate is the man America needs right now. That man is, of course, John McCain. Obama merely wants to be popular and wants everyone around the world to like Americans; he will achieve the latter with regard to the extremists by leading America in retreat waving the white flag of surrender. In doing so, many of America’s Allies will lose respect for this great nation.

McCain will stand tall and steadfast. McCain’s America will be very unpopular with terrorists, anti-Americans, undemocratic rogue states, and all those who are willing to let America (or its Allies) be attacked again (ie the non-interventionists). These people will not like what McCain will do in the face of threats to America or its allies. So what?

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’s Victory Over Extremism

March 7, 2008

John McCain’s decisive victory over the Mike Huckabee this week officially locked him into the position of Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. Predictably, many traditional, aka extremist, Republicans continued to warble on about their concerns over McCain’s more compassionate brand of conservatism. Equally as predictable has been the way in which certain media personalities are now having to backtrack somewhat regarding their hostility to the Arizona Senator – prime example, Sean Hannity. 

Many of the radio talkshow hosts had put their eggs in Mitt Romney’s basket – demonstrating the kind of myopia of which they often accuse the bubble-dwelling liberals. Hannity and Limbaugh are the ones who have been living in a bubble during the Republican primaries. Their support for Romney only demonstrated how far out of touch they are with the ordinary Republican and independent voters. It is almost incredulous to think that pundits such as these honestly believed Romney had any chance of winning a general election; and yet, they persisted in criticizing McCain and tried, in vain, to paint a picture of him as not conservative enough.

These primaries have demonstrated who has their finger on the pulse of many Americans, Republican and independents alike. It is Senator McCain, who stuck to his guns when many were about to read the last rites to his flagging campaign last year. Hannity and Limbaugh are woefully out of touch with the real world, having spent too long listening to the few sycophants surrounding them who pander to their views and laugh at their feeble attempts at humour. Hannity is like a playground bully – his coverage of the primaries and his obvious disdain for McCain and Huckabee, as shown through his abusive comments, derogatory tone and blatent disregard of the facts (eg McCain’s very clear conservative record), further highlighted his ignorance and self-love. Like a bully, who has been outed, Hannity is now in a position of weakness. His confidence must be at an all-time low, since the voters did not listen to him but made it crystal clear that his influence is on the wane.

The important question many Republicans (et al.) have to ask themselves is why so many ‘important’ Republican figures were prepared to lose the White House rather than have a candidate who did not espouse all of their views. It was almost inevitable that Romney would have lost in a battle against either Democratic candidate. Romney was not even a true conservative onmost issues until very recently (rather conveniently).

Old school Republicans have to face up to the facts. The political world is always changing – extreme right-wing views on every issue will not be popular with the majority of voters, nor the majority of Republicans. McCain’s brand of conservatism is the new Republican party which will triumph in the general election if Clinton or Obama continue to march to the beat of the extreme left-wing of the Democratic party.

Tony Blair reinvented the Labour Party in the UK, my native land, and they have dominated the political landscape for over a decade. the Republican party has to appeal to more moderate voters if it is to hold on to the Oval office. John McCain has always been the most obvious candidate to appeal to a wide range of voters.

Thank goodness the voters in the Republican party primaries made the right decision in choosing McCain. He is the right choice for a party hoping to win the election; he is the right choice for America, a nation needing courage, integrity, and grit in its next leader; he is the right choice for the leader of the free world, where democracy is facing increasingly grave threats.

Congratulations, John McCain for proving the doubters wrong and for giving hope to those of us who are not American citizens that the US will elect a President in November who will continue to fight for freedom around the world.

Romney Lies

January 16, 2008

An interesting article highlighting Mitt Romney’s willingness to do anything to get votes, including flipflop and deceive.