And would somebody please tell Godbama that he’s not president and consequently not authorized to negotiate with foreign governments?:

While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Senator Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”

Guess what, O Most Low?  It doesn’t matter what you “insist”.  You.  Are.  Not.  President.  Of.  The.  United.  States.  It is the power and privilege of the individual who still does hold that office for another one hundred twenty six days to speak for the United States of America on the global stage, and that individual is still George W. Bush.

Let’s go through this again:

The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

The text of the Act is broad and is addressed at any attempt of a US citizen to conduct foreign relations without authority. However, there is no record of any convictions or even prosecutions under the Logan Act.

Now would be a splendid time to “inaugurate” a prosecution of the Chicago Cherubim under that statute, wouldn’t you say?  A parting gift from the retiring forty-third Chief Executive?

Not only did False Messiah illegally try to chop Dubya off at the knees, but it’s not awfully difficult to see what his highly Clintonoian motivation was.  He’s finally admitted that the Surge strategy worked; if he could go around the Bush Administration and convinced Nouri al-Maliki to delay the departure of U.S. forces by an extra year past when he’s been “insisting” upon, thus humiliating GDub, but it increases the likelihood that he would be able to claim credit for the victory and bask in the glory that would be leeched from our men and women in uniform and slavishly heaped upon him by the Enemy Media.

I do strive to exercise an almost Vulcan emotional discipline when I behold such outrages, but this one, I must admit, incenses me so much as to make it difficult to see straight.

But have no fear, gentlebeings, there is a punchline.  With Barack Obama, there’s ALWAYS a punchline.  In this case, his attempt at a denial of Amir Taheri’s story ended up confirming it:

Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri’s article bore “as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.”

In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.

Well, I guess that’s a testament to the 100% veracity of Sailor’s marketing team, because what Morigi says her boss told the Iraqi government is PRECISELY WHAT AMIR TAHERI WROTE.  Is it any wonder that Rush Limbaugh has taken to play rimshots after every Rogaine Messiah audio clip?

‘Tis a pity the Donk Senate won’t lift a finger to investigate the gross violation of the Separation of Powers.  A greater pity still that if the GOP still ran the Senate they wouldn’t have anywhere close to the stones to pull the trigger on such a probe.  And the greatest pity of all is that the Bushies never would have either, and certainly won’t now as they play out the remaining string, which Barry is so arrogantly intent on prematurely and presumptuously reeling in.

BO belongs in the Greybar Hotel, not the White House.

[cross-posted at ]

A disabled American veteran, having survived 9/11 in the hills of Tajikistan, describes the events involving currently deployed American Forces and how the Vietnam vets shouldn’t compare today’s war to yesterday’s.

As the remnants and incorrigible hippies and their off-spring of the Vietnam War Era make a mockery of themselves and the United States Armed Forces in Berkeley, CA in these recent days unfolds, I am reminded of the ludicrous fallacy of the ‘Ugly American’.

Of the many things I have been called by unhinged, hysterical leftwingers, few names cause me to chuckle more than “The Ugly American”. The title (like everything else liberals believe) has no basis in any historical reality.

The name was gleaned from a 1958 novel by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer. The book was intended to show that America was losing the war against communism because of our loud, boorish arrogance and inability to understand other cultures. Like all the other dogmas of liberalism, it is based purely in fantasy- fantasy that history would expose.

That The Ugly American was a novel should end the discussion. An argument is exposed as inadequate if it must rely on fictitious events to support it. Much speculation has been made about who the characters in the book (and later, in the movie) represented, but it is so much nonsensical blather.

Let’s look at the facts.

First, War is as old as civilization itself. Since Cain first slew Abel, mankind’s barbarity has been a matter of sad fact. In fact, as time has gone by, the ability of man to torture, maim, brutalize and slay his fellow man has only been brought to more grotesque perfection while the world continues to fall into an ever more cold and callous slumber.

Second, America was not losing the war against communism. In fact, we won the war against communism. That is an objective historical fact, leftist revisionism notwithstanding.

Third, America was certainly not losing the war in Southeast Asia. At least, not by any standard by which war has ever been measured before. That America was losing the war in Vietnam is a work of pure liberal fiction.

America lost the Vietnam war, not to the communists, but to the American Government. That is a fact and it is indisputable. In an article published in Front Page Magazine, Bui Tin, a former North Vietnamese Col. admitted that the North Vietnamese were not achieving military victories, only political ones.

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,”We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”

The American protester was essential to the enemy efforts.

It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

The Vietnamese army knew they could not defeat the Americans. Only the Americans could do that.

If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland’s requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

The enemies of America resurrect the ghost of Vietnam to protest American intervention at any time, in any place. The lesson of Vietnam, they insist, is that an occupier cannot win against a well entrenched insurgency. That lesson, also, is a work of fantasy. When liberals make idiotic claims like this, they only betray their own blind ignorance of history.

The fact is that insurgencies rarely succeed. A student of history would know this, a student of fantasy would not. America did not lose the Vietnam war because of the Ugly Americans over there, it lost because of the [sic] beautiful people here. Namby Pamby sissy types took the streets of America by storm and it was the American citizen, not the American soldier, that could not counter it.

Myths about invincible guerrillas and insurgents are a direct result of America’s collective misunderstanding of its defeat in South Vietnam. This loss is generally credited to the brilliance and military virtues of the pajama-clad Vietcong. The Vietnamese may have been tough and persistent, but they were not brilliant. Rather, they were lucky - they faced an opponent with leaders unwilling to learn from their failures: the United States. When the Vietcong went toe-to-toe with U.S. forces in the 1968 Tet Offensive, they were decimated. When South Vietnam finally fell in 1975, it did so not to the Vietcong, but to regular units of the invading North Vietnamese Army. The Vietcong insurgency contributed greatly to the erosion of the American public’s will to fight, but so did the way that President Lyndon Johnson and the American military waged the war. It was North Vietnam’s will and American failure, not skillful use of an insurgency, that were the keys to Hanoi’s victory.

America lost the Vietnam war because-and only because- she lost the will to fight it. Due to the efforts of traitors and liars like John Kerry and Jane Fonda, public opinion was turned against that effort. It was a death by a thousand cuts. Make no mistake, America surrendered in a war it was winning over there because it could not put down an insurgency back here.

Leftists have attempted to capitalize on America’s humiliation in Vietnam by co-opting a Novel’s fantasy of The Ugly American into a pseudo reality. Remember, The Ugly American was a Novel that takes place in a fictional place called Sarkhan. The foreign policy of the America haters works great in imaginary places. It is in the realm of reality on earth that it is somewhat wanting.

The fantasy of The Ugly American provides a convenient model for moral cowards that are jealous of America and willing to scapegoat her for their empty, meaningless lives. These hysterical cowards envision an America that has been a friend of despots and tyrants but history has been quite unkind to their pathological delusions. For, from Poland to Nicaragua, from Grenada to Iraq, more of the world’s people are free and safe, fed, clothed, educated and receiving medical care, as a result of the American Soldier, than because of the combined efforts of all the other nations in the history of the world.

Now, it is no secret that I have had a great deal of fun over the years, poking my enemies with the proverbial stick. I have derived what is probably an unhealthy level of enjoyment by driving unhinged leftist baboons into volcanic fits of rage, by using their own rabid bigotry against them.

It is true that I do not mind being hated by these wild-eyed, spoiled and petulant little cretins. In fact, I relish it. For, I have yet to find one who can articulate a doctrine of how the world is that goes any deeper than “It’s America’s fault”. As shallow as that is, it is all they have…a feeling and ill-conceived belief.

You may call me an ugly American when I say that we can bomb whoever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want, then sit back gleefully and watch leftist cretins meltdown. Even though I say such things only to be incendiary, and entertain myself and, even though they certainly don’t reflect my real views, you could make the case that it is an ugly thing to say. That’s fair enough. I’ll accept the charge.

Just don’t expect an apology. I have my reasons. My brother was KIA in Quang Tri Province during the Tet Offensive of 1968. If there is one thing I have learned from the Police Action in Vietnam, it is this. I shall not sit idly by…as my parents and elders did…and let the unhinged do to our veterans now and our Armed Forces now, that which they did in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

For me, true ugliness is not manifested in words purely intended to incite wrath from those who are mentally unbalanced to begin with. To me, true ugliness is manifested in cold indifference to the suffering of innocent people.

You see, for me, people are real. Real pain, real suffering and real anguish are part of the human experience of oppressed people living under the iron fist of tyranny. People live under no more horrid tyranny and brutality than those burdened with the yoke of 7th century Islamic Sharia law.

For the christophobes and the America and Israel haters, all religions are equal and American and Israeli imperialism is the source of all the world’s ills. Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, reality tells a very different story, for Sharia oppression and Islamic barbarism are as old as the religion of peace, itself. Once again, a student of history can quickly attest to the truth of what I claim, while a student of fantasy will merely kick and scream in protest.

Unlike the coalition of the callous, we do not have the luxury of living in a world where other people simply don’t matter. When they look upon an oppressed people, the narcissists merely rationalize that their plight is-in some way- the result of some past American sin. This, inexplicably, renders the victim unworthy of relief or rescue.

In the world in which we live, it is simply unconscionable to view human beings as no more than pawns in a giant blame the imperialist Americans game.That is what I call ugly.

When I hear the blame America crowd calling the Iraq war immoral and demanding we pull out, I feel ill. When they compare the so-called Immoral war in Iraq with the so-called immoral war in Vietnam, I laugh.

Immoral war in Vietnam? More immoral than victims abandoned in Saigon? More immoral than the killing fields?

It is too easy for the pseudo-intellectuals to stand on the sideline, in a perpetual state of craven condemnation of American foreign policy abroad. They have that luxury because they never have to accept the consequences of their vapid stupidity. Fools such as these empty headed cretins cannot understand the difference between education and intelligence, and are fully lacking in the ability to see the world as it really is.

The one thing liberal elitists are good at is being wrong. They were wrong about Chamberlain and Carter’s pacifism just as surely as they were wrong about Reagan’s peace through strength and their opposition to the Vietnam war.

Never, ever, have they been as provably wrong as they have been in Iraq.

They predicted the fall of Iraq would not be accomplished without tens of thousands of American dead. They were wrong. They pithily argued that the handover of power wouldn’t happen, they were wrong. They claimed the elections would be stopped- wrong again.

More elections, a parliament, a prime minister, a Constitution….

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Finally, when things were going poorly, came the surge. Yet again, the apostles of failure predicted sure defeat.

Humiliating defeat after humiliating defeat after humiliating defeat. Have they learned? Of course not. They drone on in ever more bitter, ever more caustic fits of neurotic rage and feigned condescension.

…..but we know the truth, don’t we?

They, not us, are the ugly ones. Yes, we are arrogant and boorish to them. Yes, we do push them down and kick sand in their faces but we all know they deserve it, so few say anything about it.

After all, these cowards are willing to consign a person…a nation….an entire race to poverty, oppression and misery just to reinforce an arrogant, self-serving hatred towards a nation they are jealous of. Ugly Americans? There is no such thing. We overthrow ugliness and we suffer not the crap of the cowardly pigs who would stand in our way.

In conclusion, then, that which transpired in Vietnam over there and over here; that which transpired against the returning veterans, will not - I repeat - will not happen again…ever. Not on our watch.

This is all so evident because the Iraq War is not even a campaign issue any longer because the politicos were on the wrong side of the issue and they know it now as they knew it then. Why is it not an issue this year, if this were not so? All we hear now is “change”.

“Change” to what and from what? They want to “change” from that which was wrought in 2006 and 2007? Didn’t they run on that platform of “change”. Did not that “change” fail? They want to “change” from last years’ rhetoric? Does that mean they want to win, now? Or, do they merely use their all too familiar “change” ignorance to appeal to the emotionally unbalanced?

Speak up, Mr Reid, Mr Obama, Madame Pelosi, Mr Murtha, Mr Kennedy. We cannot hear you.

Cross posted from Digital Journal.

William Russell is an Iraq veteran running for the United States House of Representatives in Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District. The Russell Campaign has outraised Murtha almost 6 to 1 in the second quarter reporting period, and has raised another $600,000 since early July. This money has come from over 20,000 donors, 75% of whom gave $50 or less. Among the most notable donors are Fred Thompson and Donald Rumsfeld.  Lt. Col. Russell, USA (Retired) joined Political Pistachio Radio on Wednesday Night for his fifth visit to Political Pistachio.

On Thursday, Major General Jerry R. Curry will join Political Pistachio Radio to discuss the Russian invasion of Georgia, and how that conflict is connected to Ahmadinejad’s Iran.

Obama Nation Book by Jerome Corsi Draws Criticism - Corsi is my guest tonight on BTR

Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio Dr. Jerome Corsi must meet controversy head on!

Dr. Jerome Corsi, staff writer for World Net Daily, has suddenly found himself in the midst of a violent storm of controversy. The WND writer, this week alone, has been the object of numerous television and radio shows as the media tries to wade through the information contained in the book, and determine if the book is truly filled with falsehoods, or is a well researched piece of literature that takes a close and hard look at the Democratic Presidential front-runner, Barack Obama.

The book at the center of the controversy is, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality. The Huffington Post calls the book, “…one of the worst political books ever written. Corsi piles distortion upon innuendo to create a gigantic heap of right-wing garbage, with a seemingly endless parade of basic factual errors running through the text like rats. Corsi’s book is an embarrassment to the craft of journalism, and any of the conservatives who have praised and promoted it should feel humiliated at how bad it truly is.” Media Matters writes that The Obama Nation “contains numerous falsehoods about Sen. Barack Obama.” Even Conservative talk show host and Townhall writer Hugh Hewitt exclaims about the book, “Corsi’s from the fringe. . . the book contains errors.”

Hugh Hewitt, however, also points out that the Obama Campaign has given us an “absurd set of non-responsive responses,” and that, “Now they botch a gimmie — defining Corsi as a nut while not putting attention on the charges he leveled.”

Sean Hannity has stated that The Obama Nation “may have made his [Obama’s] campaign a bit nervous.”

Joseph Farah, founder of World Net Daily, says about the controversy surrounding the book, and Jerome Corsi, “Unlike most of the critics of The Obama Nation, I have actually read the book from cover to cover. It is a thoroughly well-documented piece of first-rate journalism. Are there mistakes in it? Show me a first edition that doesn’t have some – other than the Bible. But is it truthful? Does it add considerably to the public’s knowledge of the front-running candidate for the presidency? Do we know much more about Obama than we would had we relied exclusively for our information from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press? I offer a resounding ‘yes’ to all three of those questions. I am privileged to call him my friend, colleague and co-worker. I stand with Jerry Corsi today as he is viciously maligned by an attack media that would prefer to aim its potent artillery at a man who dared to do their job when they refused, when they laid down, when they sucked up, when they failed to ask the tough questions, when they took sides.”

In response, Barack Obama’s advisers have been tracking Corsi’s media appearances, quickly telephoning producers to react to the book’s charges, and last night, the Democratic presidential candidate’s campaign issued a 40-page response to the book.

The Democratic National Committee has its own rapid response team to take aim at Corsi’s book, saying, “One of the most vile smear peddlers of the 2004 election has found a new target. We cannot afford to let Corsi get away with the same dirty tricks that fooled so many people in 2004. We can’t rely on the media to hold him accountable – in fact, the sheer brazenness of the lies is attracting even more coverage. The media have shown that they aren’t going to stop him. It’s up to you to spread the truth.”

So, what is the truth? Is this book a classic smear job? Or is Corsi’s book simply caught up in the crosshairs of the leftists because it hits a chord? Is Dr. Jerome Corsi a discredited liar peddling garbage in order to help continue Bush-Cheney politics? Or is he a simply being lynched by the mainstream media and Democratic Party for daring to write the truth? Be the judge yourself. Read the book, and listen to what Dr. Jerome Corsi has to say tonight on Political Pistachio Radio.
The show airs live at 10:00 pm Eastern Time, but will be archived for later listening for those unable to listen live. Access the program HERE.

www.blogtalkradio.com/politicalpistachio

Over half of American voters (51%) now believe the United States and its allies are winning the war on terror, the highest figure recorded in nearly four years by Rasmussen Reports in a nationwide survey.

Only 16% now think the terrorists are on top, while 27% view it as a stalemate. Prior to this week’s survey, the number who believe the terrorists are winning had never fallen below 20%.

Last July, just 36% thought the U.S. and its allies were winning. At that time, an equal number—36%–thought the terrorists were ahead … Only 23% now expect things to get worse in Iraq, down from 49% last July.

Appears those on the left may be losing their primary source of criticism. UH-OH. So when the polling was down he was a loser and wasn’t listening to the American Public. So I can only assume that now the left will pat him on the back and say good going, keep it up.

I AM WAITING LEFTIES!!!

This message brought to you by your patriotic America can and will win friends at the Conservative Intelligence Report! And CIR Radio!

IN THE BEGINNING… there was Obamessiah, the ANOINTED ONE…

Ssg. Lorie Jewell/U.S. Army, via Associated Press

Gen. David Petraeus: Class Act
Cardboard Cutout Obama: Ass Hat

I can’t imagine what our military must be thinking about Obamessiah’s Great Adventure to the Middle East. The military is being used as a prop for The Anointed One’s latest propaganda campaign, and they know it. Sometimes, coming face to face with the enemy doesn’t necessarily take place on the battlefield…

***

TONIGHT on my radio program — the NYTimes refusal to publish Sen. McAmensty’s op-ed and other examples of slanted coverage favoring Obamessiah. Joining us — Bill Proctor, author of the best seller “The Gospel According to the New York Times”.The Media Research Center reports on more Obamedia bias.

Tune in at 9 ET — click the button below to listen.

***According to Christoph von Marschall, who is the Washington bureau chief of Der Tagesspiegel, a German daily newspaper, Barack Obama has been snubbing the Foreign Press. Phone calls and emails ignored, and von Marschall says, “We Don’t Matter”.From STOP THE ACLU…

In the Washington Post today, von Marschall writes a piece which wonders if Obama’s avoidance and refusal to answer questions from foreign journalists stems from a certain wariness about the risk of speaking to foreign media and how it can resonate back in America, and he uses the examples of Obama’s adviser Austan Goolsbee and his former aide Samantha Power, both of which made comments to foreign press and both saw ripples throughout America at those comments.

Barring that reason, von Marschall also wonders if Obama’s refusal to speak with the foreign press and answer questions from them could stem from arrogance at “being so close to power.”

Barack arrogant? Audacious? Did he just command us to genuflect?

*****

GREAT READ! Spread to your friends on the blogs! Major H/T to Mike @ Mike’s America for putting me on to this nugget. Go and download the document that McCain supporters handed to reporters leaving on the trip with the messiah, excuse me, Senator.

It is laughable that Obama supporters pretend his opinion regarding Iraq even approximates reality. Simply put, General David Petraeus - with the considerable assistance of John McCain - crafted the current SUCCESSFUL strategy. Obama has proven to be wrong over and over, except on the occasions when he arrives at positions long held my McCain.

McCain is fit, qualified, tested and ready to be President and Commander in Chief. Obama is fit, qualified, tested and ready for bu tone job: Poseur in Chief.

—Media Lizzy

ARLINGTON, VA — Today, McCain 2008 Senior
Foreign Policy Advisor Randy Scheunemann issued the following statement:

“The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama’s views had prevailed.”

###

Walid Shoebat Returns to Political Pistachio Radio

Walid’s new book, God’s War on Terror will be out after July 11, 2008

Walid Shoebat tonight returns to Political Pistachio Radio, this time to talk about the new book.

Walid has been a returning guest on Political Pistachio Radio since his first visit in September 1, 2007. He is a former Palestinian terrorist who became a Christian. After marrying his American wife, Walid tried to convert her to Islam. He bought a Bible and read it in hopes to disprove his wife’s religion. This actually backfired and then Walid learned the truth about God, and Christ’s promise of salvation. Walid has re-dedicated his life to speaking internationally about the lies of Islam, the treachery of child indoctrination in Israel of the Palestinian children by Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and Hezbollah. He teaches that Israel is a land God gave wholly to the Jews. He had to give up family and his homeland to take this position.

His first book, Why We Want to Kill You, reveals:

- How the Muslim Terrorists invaded America 30 years ago

- What their plan was and how patience was key

- How perseverence, recruitment, and hate fueled attacks in the U.S. and U.S. interests worldwide

- The similarities between radical Muslims and Nazi Germany

- Why Hitler failed so early and the Muslims, through patience, have increased their stronghold

This is information you will NOT get on CNN, MSNBC, or FoxNews or any other major television or Radio station as the Muslims have taken over financial controlling interests and will not allow the TRUTH to be aired.

Why We Want to Kill You: The Jihadist Mindset and How to Defeat It is part autobiographical, part confessional. Why We Want to Kill You helps readers in the West understand the Islamic mindset, what drives Islamic hatred and violence, and how to become more aware of the dangers to which many Americans and Europeans have become overly complacent.

Now we are seeing the world shape into what is really going on, and Walid Shoebat recognizes the signs at the center of the growing Islamization of the world.

In the news now are stories about Hamas and other radical Muslims and their attempts to continue their agenda to destroy Israel, the U.S., and other western countries.

Walid has continuously proclaimed that the only way to stop this is for Christians and Jews to stick together and fight.

Why should we join together against the Islamization of the world? Because we must realize that the invasion by Muslims worldwide creates a stronghold we should be concerned about, and if left alone, may become so large that it cannot be stoppeed.

Walid’s latest book, God’s War on Terror, is a deep comparison of Islam with the AntiChrist. Walid shows how the prophecy of the Koran lines up with the end times prophecy of the AntiChrist and how it will effect Christians and Jews. Walid also outlines how important the relationship is between Christians and Jews to protect the Jews and Israel from the evil surrounding it.

Tonight, Walid joins us to discuss his latest book. Go to Political Pistachio Radio to listen at 10:00 PM Eastern, or check out the archive later!

WASHINGTON, July 10, 2008 – The Senate has confirmed Army Gen. David H. Petraeus as commander of U.S. Central Command and Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno to receive his fourth star and succeed Petraeus as commander of Multinational Force Iraq.

95-2 Victory, so I decided to see if my logic was correct and if the “2″ were democrats. Sure enough Senator Byrd (WV) and Senator Harkin (IA) opted to give the middle finger to the good General. And even though Kennedy came in to vote this week he opted not to vote, but given his medical condition I give him a pass. In addition Harkin said “nay” to Odierno.

HOWEVER, Both Presidential Candidates opted not to vote. Now I am not sure where in the country or world they are right now but I think that is pathetic. Granted we know where McCain would have stood “yea” in both counts. But Senator Obama…wonder where he would have been. I guess just add this to another group of “not present” or “present” votes which hold no real conviction.

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 7, 2008 – Defense personnel have completed the transfer of 550 metric tons of Iraqi uranium ore to Canada, Defense officials said here today.

The Iraqi government asked the United States to help transfer the yellowcake — as the ore is known — from Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center near Baghdad to its buyer in Canada, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today.

The military dubbed the movement Operation McCall, and it ended July 5. DoD’s portion of the operation involved the transfer of the ore.

Yellowcake is a uranium ore that can be processed to become nuclear fuel. State and Energy Department personnel also participated in the transfer.

Officials transferred the uranium by convoy from Tuwaitha nuclear research facility to a secure location in Baghdad’s International Zone, Whitman said. The ore was in 110 shipping containers. The shipping containers were placed aboard Air Force C-17 Globemaster III airlifters and taken to an intermediate location. It took 37 sorties to transfer the yellowcake.

At the intermediate location — which Whitman could not name — the ore was loaded aboard the SS Gopher State, a Military Sealift Command ship, which took it to Montreal.

“This was material that was discovered when we initially went in to Tuwaitha,” Whitman said. “It was under the control of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency since that time.”

Whitman stressed that yellowcake is not of direct use in a nuclear weapon. “It is a commodity that is traded routinely in the global nuclear energy sector,” he said. “It can be used as a feed material for nuclear weapons if a country has access to the necessary fuel technology.”

The cost of the transfer was $70 million, and the government of Iraq will reimburse the United States for a portion of the cost, Whitman said.

My personal editorial comment:

I thought Iraq in no way had any type nuclear program, or held NO capability to have one? But then why did Saddam have…wait “yellowcake” where did I hear that before? Oh yeah, Wilson yappin’ about how Saddam was not involved with nuclear work.

How will the left explain this away?

A tripartite follow-up on Barack’s ballsy, bellowing bellicosity….

First, from Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on Barry’s “nebulous” commitment to stage an Iraq “publicity stunt”:

Mr. Zebari, who has served as foreign minister in every Iraqi government since 2003, finds Mr. Obama’s proposal worrying. In a meeting with Post editors and reporters Tuesday, he said that after all the pain and sacrifices of the past five years, “we are just turning the corner in Iraq.” A precipitous withdrawal, he said, “would create a huge vacuum and undo all the gains and achievements. And the others” — enemies of the United States — “would celebrate.”

Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that “Iraq is not an island.” In other words, an American withdrawal that destabilized the country would also roil the region around it and embolden U.S. adversaries such as al-Qaeda and Iran. “We have a deadly enemy,” Mr. Zebari said. “When he sees that you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity.” Mr. Zebari says he believes U.S. forces can and should be drawn down. His point is that reductions should be made gradually, as the Iraqi army becomes stronger.

Sounds like BO was doing more listening than talking, doesn’t it?  And that Minister Zebari was telling him what he didn’t want to hear.

So, in keeping with False Messiah’s neurotic conflict aversion, he evidently told the Iraqi poobah what he thought the man wanted to hear - nebulously, of course:

The foreign minister said “my message” to Mr. Obama “was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress.” He said he was reassured by the candidate’s response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that “if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field.”

This is, of course, diametrically the opposite of what he has said pretty much forever on this subject, while still leaving enough wiggle room (It depends on what the definition of the words “irresponsible,” “reckless,” and “sudden” are….) to pursue an immediate retreat as quickly after noon next January 20th as humanly possible.  Besides, who’ll ever know what Lucifer promised a nameless, faceless Iraqi official who’ll be among the first executed by the Iranian/al Qaeda terror regime that conquers Iraq after we leave?

Next, behind Door #2, we have this nicely done RNC reminder of St. Barack’s anti-terrorism instincts from a Donk primary debate last summer:

Q: Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists, and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt that it had been the work of al-Qaeda, how would you change the US military stance overseas as a result?

A: Well, the first thing we’d have to do is make sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans. And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.

The second thing is to make sure that we’ve got good intelligence, a., to find out that we don’t have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and b., to find out, do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network. But what we can’t do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast. Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community.

Because as already been stated, we’re not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We’ve got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they’ve got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake.

That the perps of this hypothetical attack were al Qaeda was explicitly stated in the question.  But apart from it is where His Eminence’s emphasis falls: maybe he’d take some potential action if he’s ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY SURE that it’s al Qaeda, but only if he gets undisputed permission from the “international community,” because “we can’t defeat terrorists on our own.”  After the way he’ll gut what’s left of the military after Bill Clinton disembowled it, that’ll probably be correct.

Senator Obama forgets that, for the time being, no other member of “the international community” has anywhere near the multi-faceted military capabilities we do.  So if we “can’t defeat the terrorists on our own,” the “international community” won’t be any help, even if they were inclined to view the war on terror as anything but the “law enforcement operation” that Ba-ROCK sees it as.  Which they’re not.

And leave us not forget that in the intelligence game, there’s no such thing as having all the facts.  There aren’t any sure things.  There are only educated guesses.  No president EVER has complete knowledge of a crisis situation, and he can’t afford to sit on his thumb and wait indefinitely in the forlorn hope that he will, or countless more Americans and allies will die.

Do you even want to contemplate this man facing an Iranian nuclear ultimatum?

Which brings us to Door #3:

Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington that the future of US strategy in the war on terrorism should follow a lesson from the pages of Winnie the Pooh, which can be shortened to: if it is causing you too much pain, try something else.

Mr Danzig told the Centre for New American Security: “Winnie the Pooh seems to me to be a fundamental text on national security.”

I swear I’m not making that up.  Or, at the very least, if somebody is, it’s way up the cyberstream from me.

But there’s more:

Mr Danzig spelt out the need to change by reading a paragraph from chapter one of the children’s classic, which says: “Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming down stairs. But sometimes he thinks there really is another way if only he could stop bumping a minute and think about it.”

This man is actually saying that the national security policy of the most powerful nation on the planet should be patterned after the whimsical antics of a miniature, taxidermized, exhibitionist, bulemic ursine mammal named after excrement.  And he’s going to be the next National Security Advisor of the United States.

But leave aside the puerile, mentally unbalanced metaphorical imagery, and focus in on the guiding principle underlying it: “If it” - our national security strategy - “is causing you too much pain, try something else.”  This, by implication, is a reference to the insurgency we’ve been fighting for the past five years in Iraq.  Or, rather, the fact that we’ve been fighting it instead of just running away, abandoning the Iraqis to get slaughtered (again), providing our enemies with a huge strategic victory, and encouraging them to further escalate their already existing war against us.  The last time the Pooh Doctrine guided our national security decisions, the result was an escalating series of al Qaeda and Hezbollah attacks culminating in “Holy Tuesday” six years, nine months, and seven days ago.  It seems to me that losing three thousand American civilians in the space of forty-five minutes was all kinds of “too much pain,” and fleeing the Islamic Fundies now would cause us a grievously huger load of it.

One can, of course, more succinctly and candidly rephrase Danzig’s slogan: Take the easy way out.  Cut & run.  Wave a worthless piece of paper around, crow that “it is peace in our time,” and watch the world - or at least Israel, Europe, and our own homeland - go up in atomic flames, one city at a time.

These are the people on whose judgment the lives of you and your loved ones will depend for at least the four years beginning next January 20th, gentlebeings.  My only questions are two:

1) Now are we expected to trot off into bovine obedience by Barry’s manly swagger or just moo?

2) You don’t really think you’re going to get any sleep tonight, do ya?

[cross-posted at ]

Only liberals, who believe in nanny state for life, would make an ad saying that “even when my child is 18 I will not allow them to make their own choices.”To the “mother”: You are dumb, if elected your child will only be 9-10 when McCain leaves office! Either you are making a BS point or you honestly believe there are pre-teens in the US Armed Forces. Either way…DUMB.

In conclusion, this is the type of garbage that made me start CIR. People trying to bash the military and its leaders. And look at where it is coming from… THE LEFT! It used to be Uncle Sam saying “I want You.” And the country responding with “yes.” Now the left has their MOTHERS speaking for them telling Uncle Sam to “F OFF.”