Is the Anti-War Movement Happy or Sad?

A U.S. soldier watches as a statue of Iraq's President Saddam Hussein falls in central Baghdad April 9, 2003.
REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic

The withdrawal of U.S. forces is only made possible because of the trend in stability and success, which can be credited to the final 2 years of the previous Administration- not this current one.

And yes, basically President Obama is just riding the coattails of what was decided upon during the Bush Presidency:

The last of the U.S. troops will be in Iraq no later than Dec. 31, 2011. That’s the deadline set under an agreement the two countries sealed during George W. Bush’s presidency.

And no, I wouldn't believe him regarding the final withdrawal date of the last U.S. troops. The SOFA is flexible and dependent upon the situation on the ground.

Is President Obama taking credit for announcing a projection that he's not even responsible for? Remember his ever-shifting position on troop withdrawal during the campaign season?

Read Obama's Bush Vindication
The Bush Pullout

Will President Obama Keep America Safe From Enemies, Foreign?

I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems

-Barack Obama as presidential aspirant in 2008

If only our enemies would do the same:

There's a reason defense is mentioned in the Constitution and health care is not. The greatest social service a government can provide for its people is to keep them alive and free.

Of course, Glenn Greenwald read things differently, earlier this month.

From the AP:

Slight increase sought for defense spending

Agency: Defense

2010 proposal: $533.7 billion

Change from 2009: 4 percent increase

War spending (addition to annual budget): $130 billion for 2010, $75.5 billion for 2009

Highlights: Obama wants only a modest increase in defense spending for 2010.

His proposal of at least $533.7 billion is only a 4 percent increase from estimated 2009 spending. Such a sizable sum shows the new administration plans to take a moderately conservative approach to the nation's defense.

But some weapon systems may take big cuts as officials and contractors decide how existing programs fit into that budget after adjustments for inflation.

Obama's request to Congress on Thursday also includes a separate $205.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan between now and fall 2010. More than a third of the war money _ $75.5 billion _ would be spent before October, when the new budget year begins.

Obama's senior defense advisers have warned that extraneous defense spending would be cut but said a detailed plan won't be released until April.

The administration said Thursday that big-ticket programs were risky and vowed to set "realistic requirements" for military priorities.

The administration said it also planned to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps and increase salaries for service members by 2.9 percent. It also will try to improve care for wounded veterans.

While the rhetoric does not bode well for contractors developing pricey weapon systems, the 2010 budget plan still reserves a considerable amount for the military, including some $10 billion a month for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Purging the Party to Win Future Elections?

In a thread about something else entirely altogether, the discussion turned into one about McCain-blame and party purging. I thought I'd share my comments which I don't expect many movement conservatives to agree with; but I figure since this is my blog, I should narcissistically share with readers what I think and how I feel:


Comment #10:

@b1jetmech:

The core circle at LGF believe the republicans need more moderates which it didn’t turn out will as history tells us.

The only reason McCain lost the election was because of McCain, not the base.

Bullshit. You said it yourself: You held your nose and voted for McCain. Conservatives did come out to bat (whether for McCain, for Palin, or against Obama), because we knew the alternative was far worse.

McCain ran a lousy campaign with an inconsistent message. The timing of the economic crisis in September, his response to it, a media that didn't do its job, an American public that was Bush-fatigued, all worked against us in this election cycle. Compound that with an uber-candidate that not even a Clinton shoe-in/birth-right nomination could overcome, you have an election that was bigger than laying scapegoating blame on McCain. Any conservative dream candidate would have had an uphill battle to wage this time around. Just look at the messianic-like fervor of Obama supporters; the desire amongst many Americans to see the glass-ceiling break, of putting into office a non-white president.

Like it or not, when the country is split down the middle 50/50, you're going to need the wishy-washy conservatives like myself and center-right/center-left moderates as well as cross-over Democrat voters to win future elections. You're not going to win elections by shrinking the party. I do agree, however, that conservative principles and ideology should not be abandoned, but better espoused. Which is why we need a better 'delivery system"; someone who can charismatically get across the conservative message and make it "hip" and "cool" and attractive. Substance alone isn't enough without good packaging/marketing- something Obama has in spades (minus the substance).

I really don't think McCain lost because "he wasn't conservative enough". Look at how candidates in state elections who are hard-core conservatives fared even worse than McCain. He lost because Obama ran the better campaign, had the more appealing "packaging" and "message".

McCain didn't lose because he isn't conservative enough; and Obama didn't win because he's liberal too much. It all comes down to how you're able to market the message.

From my comment #26:

@b1jetmech:

Wordsmith: The country isn’t 50/50 it’s 60/40, 60% conservative/center right. The republican party can’t be “all things” to all people. McCaine tried that and failed.

Agreed. McCain had an inconsistent message, and I think that might be due to his campaign handlers trying to get him to "say all the right things". The base were aching for him to hammer Obama hard on his radical ties; when he relented, it was in a half-assed manner, providing fodder for liberals in the media and Democrats to characterize McCain as running a negative campaign. The whole Palin comment about "palling around with terrorists" worked against the McCain campaign, because they never followed through with why it mattered; when McCain finally mentioned Ayers in the debates, it was as though he expected the media to do the public's homework for them and report to the electorate why the ties mattered- which was more than about what Ayers did in the 60's. McCain should either not bring the topic up at all, or he should go "all the way" and highlight, underline, and underscore why Ayers mattered.

As far as "republican party can't be 'all things' to all people", I agree; which is why I said in comment #10 that "conservative principles and ideology should not be abandoned, but better espoused". Hence my talk about having a "charismatic" "delivery system".

This may be insulting to the American people, but the truth of the matter is, there are a number of voters who will turn out on Election Day and vote without being well-informed. There's a reason why campaign slogans like "Country First" and "Hope and Change" become mantras for candidates. Messages often need to be condensed and simplified for public consumption.

From Hugh Hewitt's 2004 book, Ch14 on Majorities Require the Votes of Some Not-Very-Bright People, pg 85:

Huge numbers of people who simply cannot read a sentence vote in elections.

~~~

Just like the uncomfortable fact that all elections depend upon the votes of grade school and high school dropouts. Except for criminals, everyone gets to vote if they want to. Even though most illiterates don't vote, vast numbers do as do vast numbers of dropouts.

Elections are decided by people you wouldn't want to change your oil or make change at the local supermarket.

Which explains why politics requires simple messages.

A lack of education does not mean a lack of character or a lack of patriotism. It can often mean, however, that the individual without much education is not in a position to respond to intricate arguments and big words.

Politics often comes down to slogans and pictures and music because candidates need to communicate with broad ranges of people, some of whom don't have the mental equipment to deal with policy papers.

The mandatory simplicity of a lot of politics puts off some people.

They want to talk big ideas and they scorn simple speech.

A lot of intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals fall into the trap of ignoring the need to communicate with every possible voter.

Hence my fixation in this thread on "packaging" and "marketing" the message. We conservatives may think we are the party of ideas and substance, but it does us no good if we are unable to communicate the ideology. The image of the GOP and conservative ideology has been successfully (mis)characterized by its opponents: We're supposedly the "party of the selfish rich", "religious nuts", racists, anti-gay bigots, uncaring of the poor and the homeless, warmongers, anti-environment, and close-minded; a party primarily made up of an "old white men's" club.

Even though most conservatives I know espouse what I deem to be the correct message of MLK, which is to not obsess over skin-color, unlike Democrats who's election wins depend upon "the black vote", from a political standpoint, the Jindals and the Steeles are important to the party....*sigh*....because of skin color. It's a frustrating paradox. But for the sake of image, the Jindals and the Steeles are important to the future of the GOP, because they are eloquent conduits of conservative principles and ideology. And for the side of the aisle who is still "stuck on race", they might not be tuned into listening to a Fred Thompson; but they just might prick their ears up for one moment and forget the oreo-throwing to listen to the message of the messenger who is not your stereotypical old, white, rich Republican.

If we need the moderate vote or Democrat vote we do it by having them come to us not compromise our principles for them.

Which is why I'm not too keen on the concept of "bipartisanship". At least not in the sense that it means diluting oneself of conservativism, creating an inferior and lameduck product.

But when you say "have them come to us", well of course! But sometimes that does mean "compromise" and exercising "diplomacy". The "all-or-nothing-at-all" angry conservative who will sit on his hands come election time because a candidate is never "pure" enough for them is childish and will lose us elections. We never agree with anyone 100% of the time. If that's the candidate we're looking for, then we should nominate ourselves each time.

When Mike talks of me being "nice" to the opposition, it's not a matter of me trying to "go along to get along", as Mike put it in another post somewhere; it's a matter of exercising "civility" to ultimately get what I want; which is more converts to the conservative cause. You don't do that by bludgeoning people over the head with your message; you don't do it by throwing out the moderates and alienating them with insults. Usually when you insult people and resort to name-calling in debates, all you will succeed in doing is make the other person defensive and bunker down rather than listen, ponder, and engage the merits of what you're actually saying.

The Republicans who lost this last go-around were mostly moderates in liberals states. They should have sailed through re-election because they were all things to all people but they didn’t.

Republicans who fared better than McCain in states with close elections were those candidates perceived, like McCain, as as "independent" or "moderate" (like Lindsey Graham, Gordon Smith, and ....er....Susan Collins- doh!).

In those places where McCain was on the ballot with a local conservative candidate, I don't recall a single state where a Republican further to the right than McCain ran better than him.

In regards to the claim that McCain received "5million votes less the GW Bush in 04′", this was due to him losing the votes of self-described independents. The number of Republican voters who turned out was about the same in '04 as it was in '08. The base became energized by the Palin-McCain ticket and were highly driven by an anti-Obama fervor.

In order to win elections you need the independent voters and self-described moderates. You don't do that by pissing away at voters within the party you deem too impure. Yes, there are CINOs that drive me as crazy as they drive you within the Party. But this RINO witch-hunt is somewhat of a losing strategy. More focus should be paid to communicating conservative ideology in an inclusive manner that will attract voters to adopt conservatism in order to "grow the Party"; not shrink it. The way you build a majority is by dealing with people who are different from yourself in a way that will win over converts.

Your Chance to Air Your Opinion to the RNC

Ever felt a "little" bit peeved at the RNC for any reason? Especially in the last several years? Well now's your chance to voice your CONSTRUCTIVE criticism through RNC Grassroots, and have some influence.

From Lorie Byrd:

I am working on one of the subcommittees that will be reporting to the RNC regarding tech/grassroots. We are trying to get as many ideas, suggestions, comments, etc. as possible from as many people as possible. If you have ever criticized the RNC, this is the time to make your voice heard because they are listening. If there is anything you believe the RNC has done right, this is the time to let them know so they can do more of it.

Read more »

Sunday Funnies

More at Flopping Aces

"Right turn, Clyde..."

I hear chimps can be dangerous. What about orangutans?




I'd say cussin' grannies can be pretty darn dangerous (echoes of Gran Torino?):

Bill Clinton Approves of Rolling Back “His” Welfare Reform of ‘96

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation:

The House and Senate stimulus bills will overturn the fiscal foundation of welfare reform and restore an AFDC-style funding system. For the first time since 1996, the federal government would begin paying states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads. Indeed, the new welfare system created by the stimulus bills is actually worse than the old AFDC program because it rewards the states more heavily to increase their caseloads. Under the stimulus bills, the federal government will pay 80 percent of cost for each new family that a state enrolls in welfare; this matching rate is far higher than it was under AFDC.

It is clear that--in both the House and Senate stimulus bills--the original goal of helping families move to employment and self-sufficiency and off long-term dependence on government assistance has instead been replaced with the perverse incentive of adding more families to the welfare rolls. The House bill provides $4 billion per year to reward states to increase their TANF caseloads; the Senate bill follows the same policy but allocates less money.

What's the real objective here?

The goal of the bills is "spreading the wealth," not reviving the economy.

"...today does mark the beginning of the end..."
-President Barack Obama


Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

Sunset Before Signing: The Transparency of Another Obama Broken Promise

The hands of President-elect Barack Obama are seen as he speaks to the media following a meeting with members of his future cabinet and economic advisors at his transition office in Washington January 6, 2009.
REUTERS/Jason Reed


Byron York, now writing for The Examiner, exposes another deceptive lie from President Obama.

Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

Byron York sheds some light on how "the era of transparency" is anything but:
Read more »

It's Raining Candy....

....Hallelujah!

President Obama Holding Detainees without Trial

An arrow pointing to the direction of Mecca is seen on the floor of the "Camp Four" detention facility movie room at U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay in this image reviewed by the U.S. military. Camp Four houses the most "compliant" detainees where they live in a more open, community-oriented manner.
REUTERS/Mandel Ngan/Pool

Inside Gitmo is on my book list; I listened to the author interviewed on radio a week or two ago.

Oh, the moral and legal quandary of what to do with the detainees; not like it is any different from the dilemma the previous Administration faced. Today's WaPo:

Approximately 60 detainees who have been cleared for release by the Bush administration remain at the camp. An additional 21 detainees are facing charges before military commissions and are almost certain to face trial in federal court, courts-martial or some new version of the current system of military commissions.

Nearly 60 others could be prosecuted, the Pentagon has said, although many legal experts say that is unrealistic because of a lack of evidence and other problems.

That leaves the fate of roughly 100 prisoners unclear. A Pentagon spokesman said the department would not discuss the cases of individual detainees.

Bush administration officials have insisted that among the detainees are any number of al-Qaeda leaders, their financiers and facilitators, and high-level members of the Taliban.

"If you release the hard-core al-Qaeda terrorists that are held at Guantanamo, I think they go back into the business of trying to kill more Americans and mount further mass-casualty attacks," former vice president Richard B. Cheney said in a recent interview with Politico. "If you turn them loose and they go kill more Americans, who's responsible for that?"

Obama administration officials acknowledge that closing the prison is not risk-free and that some detainees may return to terrorism. But the president has concluded that Guantanamo has sapped America's moral stature abroad and mired the country in endless litigation, forestalling justice for the alleged terrorists. Of the 779 people taken to Guantanamo, only three have been convicted, and two of those have since been released.

"That can of worms," as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently described the Guantanamo issue, can no longer be kicked "down the road."

Great comment by MataHarley:

There most certainly was a carefully planned system in place to interrogate and charge enemy combatants that were held on foreign soil (i.e. detain and try thru military tribunals at Gitmo). They were never to be held without charges, but if found to be a risk, held until combat’s end as allowable via the Geneva Convention. These are not soldiers of state. They are stateless gangs of Islamic thugs.

That system was steadily thwarted, eroded, delayed and finally abrogated by legal challenge after legal challenge by ACLU lawyers. This is *not* holding them without charges. Any delays in their justice were caused by these legal actions.

A prime example of this entire process is exemplified by Judge Pohl, who refused to delay the hearing and process at Obama’s “request” in the interest of justice and due process rights that include a speedy trial.

Today, because of Obama, they are genuinely being held without charges. Unlike Bush, who had his every attempt for trials thwarted, Obama is REALLY holding them without charges while he “ponders” on what to do.

So I’d say if you have a beef with deliberate delays of justice, and holding people without charges (or even a process in which to charge them), you start pointing your finger at the ACLU and Obama. Because they are the only ones throwing the monkey wrench into the system that was set up for enemy combatants.

He did a photo op to the adoring world. And they are so stupid that they can’t see what he is doing is exactly what they have been falsely accusing Bush of doing for years.

Obama Warmongering in Pakistan

2nd airstrike by a Predator within Pakistan's tribal area since President Obama took office, happened early Saturday morning as a way to send a message of love to al-Qaeda:

Today's strike is the fifth attack this year and the first since Jan. 23, when US Predators conducted attacks in North and South Waziristan. The Jan. 23 attacks took place just two days after President Barack Obama took office.

The airstrike in South Waziristan is also the first since Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, disclosed that the CIA was operating a covert air base that is used to conduct the attacks inside of Pakistan. "As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," Feinstein said after brushing off criticism and protests over the attacks.

Senator Feinstein's spokesman later claimed she was referring to a February 2008 report in the Washington Post. In September 2006, the Asia Times reported the US was operating a secret base in Tarbella, a region 12 miles outside of Islamabad.

Pakistan's defense minister rejected Feinstein's claim on Feb. 13. “We do have the facilities from where they can fly, but they are not being flown from Pakistani territory," Defense Minister Ahmad Mukhtar said. "They are being flown from Afghanistan... I do not know on what she based all this.”

Senior officials in Pakistan's government and military, including the president, the prime minister, and the Army chief of staff, have repeatedly protested US airstrikes inside the tribal areas as violations of the country's sovereignty. The disclosure of the base puts the Pakistani officials in a difficult situation with the citizens of Pakistan.

Where are the peace activists? Why isn't Medea Benjamin making a nuisance of herself at the White House? But more importantly: Why is Dianne Feinstein such an idiot? During the previous few years, critics have blamed Bush for damaging our relations with our allies; but what really harmed cooperation with us from allies is the charge that the U.S. can't keep secrets, which results in embarrassment at the expense of our allies. This has happened with rendition programs (which continues under the Obama Administration) and the NYTimes leak of the SWIFT banking program.

How will President Obama fare on the foreign front?

Sunday Funnies

More at Flopping Aces

Happy Valentine's Day

First Love
By John Clare


I ne'er was struck before that hour
With love so sudden and so sweet.
Her face it bloomed like a sweet flower
And stole my heart away complete.

My face turned pale, a deadly pale.
My legs refused to walk away,
And when she looked what could I ail
My life and all seemed turned to clay.

And then my blood rushed to my face
And took my eyesight quite away.
The trees and bushes round the place
Seemed midnight at noonday.

I could not see a single thing,
Words from my eyes did start.
They spoke as chords do from the string,
And blood burnt round my heart.

Are flowers the winter's choice
Is love's bed always snow
She seemed to hear my silent voice
Not love appeals to know.

I never saw so sweet a face
As that I stood before.
My heart has left its dwelling place
And can return no more.

Today is Friday the 13th.....

.....are you scared yet?

Happy 200th Birthday, President Lincoln!

A couple shares a moment during their visit to the Abraham Lincoln Memorial after midnight in Washington February 12, 2009.

REUTERS/Jason Reed

Joaquin Phoenix vs. David Letterman

Recently, Curt posted on the retarded politics of Alec Baldwin and Val Kilmer.

It doesn't take political bloviating, however, to show just how dysfunctionally bizarre some of these people are.

Last night, Joaquin Phoenix was on Letterman, trying to out-do Crispin Glover and Farrah Fawcett:
Read more »

Obama and Julio down by the schoolyard...

With the worst person in the world, Keith Olbermann:




Ok...the kid's 19 and in school......he's lucky he even has a job at McDonalds; what the hell does he expect at 19 from McDonald's?



Uh...no, he is not "like an every guy". Jesus....

Conservatives have "Joe the Plumber"; liberals have "Julio the McDonald's worker"

Not sure why, but I thought of this song (does it have something to do with pot?):

Sunday Funnies

More at Flopping Aces

President Obama Reads “The Moon Over Star” while the Country’s Economy Sinks Deeper Toward Catastrophic Fail

“…a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany…”
-Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.
January 7, 2008

President Barack Obama reacts next to first lady Michelle Obama as he talks to 2nd grade students at the Capital City Public Charter School (Lower School) in Washington February 3, 2009.
REUTERS/Larry Downing




The rise of the oceans must be beginning to slow....because I find myself in agreement with Maureen Dowd!

Earlier this week, a beam of light came down through the window, and the Moonbat Madame was struck down by the following epiphany:

On 9/11, President Bush learned of disaster while reading “The Pet Goat” to grade-school kids. On Tuesday, President Obama escaped from disaster by reading “The Moon Over Star” to grade-school kids.

“We were just tired of being in the White House,” the two-week-old president, with Michelle at his side, explained to students at a public charter school near the White House.

Even as he told the children his favorite superheroes were Batman and Spider-Man, his own dream of being the superhero who swoops in to swiftly save America was going SPLAT!

It just ain’t that easy.

~~~

Mr. Obama’s errors on the helter-skelter stimulus package were also self-induced. He should put down those Lincoln books and order “Dave” from Netflix.

When Kevin Kline becomes an accidental president, he summons his personal accountant, Murray Blum, to the White House to cut millions in silly programs out of the federal budget so he can give money to the homeless. [through personal, private charity, I hope-wordsmith]

“Who does these books?” Blum says with disgust, red-penciling an ad campaign to boost consumers’ confidence in cars they’d already bought. “If I ran my office this way, I’d be out of business.”

Mr. Obama should have taken a red pencil to the $819 billion stimulus bill and slashed all the provisions that looked like caricatures of Democratic drunken-sailor spending.

As Senator Kit Bond, a Republican, put it, there were so many good targets that he felt “like a mosquito in a nudist colony.” He was especially worried about the provision requiring the steel and iron for infrastructure construction to be American-made, and by the time the chastened president talked to Chris Wallace on Fox Tuesday, he agreed that “we can’t send a protectionist message.”

Mr. Obama protested to Brian Williams that the programs denounced as “wasteful” by Republicans “amount to less than 1 percent of the entire package.” All the more reason to cut them and create a lean, clean bill tailored to creating jobs.

Currently, the unemployment rate hovers around 7.2%. By the Administration's own calculations, where will unemployment be after 2 years under passage of the stimulus bill? 7.0%!

Most of the jobs would only replace those lost to the recession. Even with the stimulus package, the administration estimates that unemployment would be 7% at the end of 2010 — barely below the current 7.2% rate.

As Michael Medved put it on his Thursday broadcast, this isn't a recovery passage: It's a status quo package! With one difference, of course: We will have squandered all of that taxpayer money on creating a catastrophe of new debt.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Maybe a lot of both.



At least this time around, we have a President who is not hiding out for 7 minutes in some school classroom during "this was the moment" of our nation's "worst" economic "catastrophy".


President Barack Obama, and his wife, first lady Michelle Obama, read to second graders at Capital City Public Charter School in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009. The Obamas read 'The Moon Over Star' by Dianna Hutts Aston. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)(Hat tip for bottom photo: GayPatriot)




Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

The Normalizing of Evil

and the Left's moral inversion.

Remembering Karen...

...and saying "thank you":



Hat tip: American Power

Tribute at: Educated Shoprat

Every purple finger....a bullet

"Every purple finger is a bullet in the chest of terrorism."
-Mohammed Al-Rehaief

Photo from Marie's Two Cents


Iraqi soldiers display their ink-stained fingers after casting their votes in the country's provincial elections in Najaf, Iraq.
Alaa Al-marjani-AP

A woman shows her ink-stained finger to her baby in a polling station in Kerbala, southwest of Baghdad, January 31, 2009.
REUTERS/Mushtaq Muhammed

The disinterested media.

John Bolton: Iraq's victory, Iran's loss

The Best Super Bowl Commercial Not Shown

NBC decided not to air it.

Were they afraid it'd turn conservatives into anti-life voters?

Hat tip: Midnight Blue

Freedom Eden reviews the Half-time Show.

Is there a little Obama in you?

Is there?

The Third Jihad

Posted by Curt at Flopping Aces.

Also, the FBI finally has severed ties to CAIR. CAIR blames it on the perpetuation of Bush Administration policies....which is a complete joke as former President Bush went out of his way after September 11th, 2001, to make sure Muslims were not targets of religious bigotry, even going sofar as to state "Islam is a religion of peace", much to the consternation of many pro-war on terror conservatives.

CAIR should no more represent the voice of "moderates" (depends on your definition of what a "moderate" Muslim is) and patriotic Muslims than Jesse Jackson's RAINBOW Push Coalition should speak on behalf of the black community. (Recall CAIR's flagging membership numbers, too).

Sunday Funnies

More Sunday Funnies at Flopping Aces