Whoa!!!

There was another Democrat debate on Wednesday night and some interesting things were said - or not said that are not getting a lot of attention.

Here's the question from Tim Russert and the answers from the top three candidates:

...will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, that there will be no troops, US troops in Iraq?"

And their answers...

"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.

"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

I guess President Bush's advice on the war is having an impact on them.

This has got to be really irritating the anti-war Left! If I were them I would be concerned about their credibility and conviction.

Dems Must March in Lock Step, Or Else!

Democrat Washington Representative Denis Baird is feeling the heat for changing (gasp!) his stance on the war in Iraq and supporting Bush's Surge strategy.

A month after Baird, a Democrat from Washington state, switched his views on Iraq and embraced President Bush’s surge strategy, he remains persona non grata in many circles.

At home, he is besieged by angry protesters and hostile ads.

There is no room in the Democrat Party these days for difference of opinion! He must be discredited and driven off.

I give Rep. Baird a lot of credit because he had to know that he would be attacked by the extreme left wing that influences his party and tried to unseat Joe Leiberman.

“There were a few who felt I undermined the message, but I could really care less,” he said Tuesday. “Some were mad at me that I was going off message. In fact, even some of the people who had been pro-war said that to me. ... They were so quickly jumping to criticism of someone with a different position. It’s unfortunate that we’re being driven by such an extreme wing right now.”

Baird argued that the anti-war faction of his party allowed no room for alternate approaches.

“They are driving the agenda far too much, and it’s the wrong direction for this country,” he said. “We all agree that we can’t stay forever there, but how we withdraw and when we withdraw and why we withdraw matters a great deal to our own security, the legacy we leave in Iraq and our public image internationally.”

Hang in there Mr. Baird. Your doing the right thing.

Bush Advising Hillary and other Top Dem Presidential Candidates

Isn't this interesting?

What the Jim Webb Amendment Really Was

...was intended as a way to undermine the war without actually having to take responsibility for doing so.

This is Why...

...we're at war.

The Left Deperately Wants to Lose the War

Despite the good report from General Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker, the Left still want us to lose the war against terrorism in Iraq.

The Democrats went after the good General even before he gave his report and our friends at Moveon.org took out a newspaper ad attacking him, calling him General "Betray Us"

The ad accuses the general of "Cooking the Books for the White House" and asserts "General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts," citing optimistic statements the general has made about Iraq in the past.

We certainly can't have any good news about the war, can we? That would be a terrible thing. Only for those who have staked their future on our failure. And those people would be those on the Left.

So you will see and are seeing the Left attacking the messenger, the message, and the ability of our troops to win the war.

The Left Shows Their "Support" for the Troops

Two incidents occurred towards the end of this week that showed how the Left "supports" the troops fighting in Iraq.

The first is Brian De Palma's movie debut at the Venice Film Festival. His movie, Redacted, clearly (except to Wulfgar) attempts to implicate all of our troops as rapist and criminals by making a movie about the actions of five soldiers - who are now being tried and sentenced.

"The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people," he told reporters after a press screening.

"The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war," he said.

Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi was gang raped, killed and burnt by American soldiers in Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad, in March 2006. Her parents and younger daughter were also killed.

Five soldiers have since been charged with the attack. Four of them have been given sentences of between 5 and 110 years.

This is how a Hollywood Liberal and I would bet, most anti-war Liberals honestly feel about our troops. Here again, he implies that Iraqi civilians are being killed by American troops, never mind the insurgents and Saddam loyalists who are killing civilians.

The film, shot in Jordan with a little known cast, ends with a series of photographs of Iraqi civilians killed and their faces blacked out for legal reasons.

"I think that's terrible because now we have not even given the dignity of faces to this suffering people," De Palma said.

The second is the national Democrat Party, the Democrat Party of Nevada, the Washoe County Democrat Party and the Carson City Democrat Party have all teamed up and organized a counter-rally against Move America Forward’s “Fight for Victory Tour” kickoff event in Carson City, Nevada on Monday, September 3, 2007.

The goal of the "Fight for Victory Tour" is to show support for our troops and to get the message out there that the war terror is going well.

The goal is to mobilize national support in advance of Gen. David Petraeus' mid-
September report to Congress on the progress of the war in Iraq.

"We want to get people to focus on Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador (Ryan) Crocker's report that contrary to the popular misperception, we're actually making a lot of progress on the war on terror," said Sal Russo, a strategist for the

Sacramento-based Move America Forward.

"We've been defeating al-Qaida decisively. It's part of the story that gets lost because so much of the story has been focused on how Iraq has been developing its own government, which is slower than we like."

The anti-war Democrats are demonstrating against the war and against the troops. They don't want victory. They don't want to defeat al-Qaida.

While they have every right to protest victory and our troops, I have the same right to say they are wrong to do so and to point out their lie that they "support the troops".

These two cases show how the anti-war left really thinks about the troops. It hasn't changed a bit from how they felt about them during Viet Nam.

Who's Advising Obama???

I think somebody from the Daily Kos must be advising Obama. He's saying some very strange things these days. First, he wants to meet without pre-conditions with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, giving them credibility they don't deserve. Then he wants to invade our ally, Pakistan. Then the other day, he says our troops in Afganistan are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."

These comments have exposed him as the far left unqualified Liberal he is and have effectively taken him out of the running for the Democrat nomination. I have to give Hillary credit for calling him out on these comments.

So You Think You Can Dance "Supports The Troops"

The "Conservative" Fox Network had an episode of So You Think You Can Dance that had 10 anti war dance solos as part of the competition. Of course it's art so it's immune to criticism according to executive producer Nigel Lythgoe.

"Art should be allowed to make statements," he said.

I wonder if next week, they will do a pro-war anti-terrorism episode.

In addition, choreographer, Mia Michaels showed her "support of the troops" by wearing a Marine Corps Dress Blues blouse with lance corporal chevrons upside down and in the incorrect location on the sleeve. She claims that she had no idea. Emphasis mine.

"Emmy-nominated choreographer Mia Michaels thought she was going to have a wonderful day. She woke up this morning to find hundreds of messages posted on her website. "And I thought, wow, I must've been a really good judge last night," says Michaels.

But then she opened the messages and was shocked by their tone and content. "It was hate mail," she says simply. "Saying things like, 'You should be ashamed of yourself.' It was really intense. It was awful."

The writers were responding to a jacket worn by Michaels on Wednesday's show. She had no idea that anyone would be offended by it, she says. She simply thought she was being fashionable by wearing a navy blue military jacket that happened to have a Marine emblem, upside down, on the sleeves. After hearing the feedback, Michaels tried to make amends on the air. "I understand why people were upset and I respect that," she says. "That symbol is sacred to the Marines, it's what they earned. The problem needed to be addressed and I'm glad we addressed it. That's why I made a public apology."

So let me get this straight, the show does an episode with 10 anti-war dances and during the show, Mia Michaels wears a Marine Dress Blues blouse with upside down insignia, and we're supposed to believe that it was a mistake? Give me a break. It was a deliberate and planned insult to the men and women of the Marine Corps.

Update: I pasted all the non-spam comments as a single comment.

The Kos Kooks Think Cheney or Rumsfeld Ordered Pat Tillman Killed

I don't normally spend much time looking at the Daily Kos, but I did stumble on this little gem this morning when I was over at Little Green Footballs.

"It appears that for a time Pat Tillman bought into the propaganda like so many green fresh-faced kids do. When he found that it was a lie and wrote to others including his family about the atrocities he was seeing on a daily basis and being forced to participate in by his commanding officers, he was seen as a threat to the whole Iraq War Lie told by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Powell, and Rice. Pat was a famous enlistee who would find an audience and he was finding his own voice and it scared the daylights out of the Administration liars. "

"So when the letters home detailing the day to day horrors he was being asked to inflict on innocent civilians showed some consistency and gravity and when his conversations to others in the squad started to raise eyebrows, he was ordered killed to keep his mouth shut. That is what this country has become and it is to our collective shame that his death speaks. The US Congress needs to speak for all the dead through Pat Tillman with a thorough investigation, seeking conviction of all who sought to silence him through death. "

I am sure those on the left of the Blogosphere take this very seriously. They're judgment is clouded by their hate of George Bush and his administration.

3ccd, the writer of this post, fails to link to any of the articles he quotes and when I tried googleing them, I was unable to find them.

Here is a link to a story about how Pat Tillman died as told by his comrades.

Troop Rest Plan Amendment

After studying Jim Webb's Troop Rest Plan amendment, a proposed law that would require troops an equal amount of rest time as to their most recent deployment, I've come to a conclusion about what I think about it.

It's a proposal that sure sounds good but when you really think about it, it's not. I oppose it on constitutional grounds. The congress only has the authority to fund or not fund a war. The President is Commander and Chief and determines how the war is fought. Having Congress trying to micro manage the war is a bad idea and unconstitutional. The Generals and President need to have complete flexibility to fight the war and send whatever troops they need to whenever they need to. They can't be hamstrung by rules and laws that prevent them from doing this.

Again, our troops have volunteered and went into this knowing the rules. They know full well they can be called up at any time to fight.

This amendment is purely a political tactic to claim Republicans don't care about the troops while Democrats do. To say it's not a a political tactic is to be intellectually dishonest.

I know I'll get called out on this and labeled a hypocrite again, which is the purpose of this amendment, but I'll take the arrows and will not shrink from what I know to be right.

Supporting the War - Why we must win in Iraq

In my previous post, Shane referenced a couple of posts I made several months ago. It gave me a chance to reread them and reflect on what I had said. I'm very happy with what I wrote and wanted to actually expand on a point I brought up here.

I believe that Iraq is the front line in the war on terror. We are there to stabilize the region by helping Iraq democratize. I believe that spreading freedom and liberty is a good thing. It is in our county's best interest to have stability in the Middle East. Frankly, we need a free flow of oil. By doing so, they can have peace and prosperity and stop hating and resenting the USA.

It is critical that we set up a long term base of operations in Iraq. We must be a presence in this region that is a hotbed and training ground for terrorists. By our being there we will stabilize the area and provide hope for the vast majority of the peace loving population. We can eliminate Muslim Extremest Terrorism by being there. If we leave now, the terrorists will overtake these countries and create a situation that will imperil the US and the rest of the western world.

Supporting the Troops

Shane goes through some pretty convoluted attempts to claim he supports the troops in Iraq here. He calls out a couple of my previous posts somehow trying, I think, to prove that I'm a hypocrite on the subject. I've read the post several times and still have difficulty trying to understand his point.

He claims this "To speak out against the war was to put the troops in harms way. Andy typifies that here, when he made the false claim that terrorist would attack the US before the last election: (emphasis mine)"

in reference to this statement from me "By liberals and Democrats opposing the war the way they do, they put our service men in more danger. The terrorists and insurgents know that they have their chances of victory are greater if liberals and Democrats are in power. And by knowing this, their resolve is strengthened. If, on the other hand, liberals and Democrats were in full support of the war and not so passive and anti-Bush, the enemy would be demoralized and weaker with less of our service men dying.
-
Yes, I blame the anti-war liberals and Democrats for the reason more Soldiers and Marines are dying than should be. The enemy knows that they can easily manipulate our liberal media and liberal politicians"

I don't know were he gets that I claim terrorists will attack the US before the election. I also don't see where I'm a hypocrite.

Anyway, in rereading the two posts he references, I still stand by them and still believe them to be true. I'm calling out the anti war Liberals and Democrats and how their anti war position on the war is hurting our troops and strengthening the resolve of the enemy.

I believe they want to lose the war and are doing all they can to see that happen as I say here. Harry Reid has even publicly declared the war lost. What kind of message does that send our troops? What kind of message does that send our enemy? When the Senate Majority Leader makes a declaration like that, it only confirms what I have said.

I also cannot reconcile the statement "I support the troops but I don't support their mission". How can that be? They all volunteered to serve knowing the risks and what they're mission is. They are going into it willingly. How can you honestly say you support the troops but not what they are doing? Perhaps I'm affected by the anti war people during the Viet Nam war who openly and publicly expressed their hate and disgust towards the troops.

Bring it on Barbara!

Barbara Boxer wants impeachment to be on the table.

If the impeachment is about Bush lying about WMDs, than all those that claimed that Saddam had WMD should also face impeachment.

Let's see....

Pelosi, Kerry, Levin, Rockefeller, and let's not forget Hillary Clinton.

Military Death Rates - Clinton vs. Bush

I heard this on Rush yesterday and feel compelled to post on it. According to this DOD report, the death rates of military personnel were not much different in the first few years of Clinton's administration compared to Bush's first few years with a war.

In fact, we have lost a little over 3000 of our military in the last four years fighting in Iraq which is about 750 per year. During Clinton's first four years in office, the military lost over 4000 or 1000 per year. From 1980 to 2004, it looks like we lost approx 1000 a year on average. The numbers went down during the last years of Clinton but that is due to his significant cuts in the military.

This goes to show how ridiculous the daily MSM military death count is. It is so out of proportion to reality and exposes their anti-war, pacifist agenda.

Obama Thinks Soldier's Lives Wasted

Obama goofed up and said what Liberals and Anti War activists really think.

During his first press conference as a presidential candidate at Iowa State University, Obama, discussing his opposition to the Iraq war, said the war "should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.''

So he's out apologizing now with this...

''I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term,'' he said. ''Their sacrifices are never wasted. . . . What I meant to say was those sacrifices have not been honored by the same attention to strategy, diplomacy and honesty on the part of civilian leadership that would give them a clear mission."

And this...

"Well as I said, it is not at all what I intended to say, and I would absolutely apologize if any of them felt that in some ways it had diminished the enormous courage and sacrifice that they'd shown. You know, and if you look at all the other speeches that I've made, that is always the starting point in my view of this war.''

Everybody knows what he said first is what he really meant. All the anti war pacifists think this and at least he was honest for a minute. He is smart enough to know most Americans don't feel this way and had to do a quick two-step to get out of trouble.

He will, of course, get a pass from the adoring MSM.

Which Party Benefits if We Lose in Iraq?

And which party benefits if we win?

To answer my own rhetorical question, the Democrat Party have clearly positioned themselves to be the beneficiaries of a loss in Iraq. They have invested heavily in the US "redeploying" and pulling out, letting the Iraqis fight it out amongst themselves in their so-called "sectarian civil war". This is why they oppose the additional 20,000 troop surge and are fighting to defy the Constitution in usurping the President's powers and responsibilities.

They cannot afford to allow the United States of America to win the war in Iraq. They fear victory and oppose the President's every move. They are enjoying and reveling in the current problems we are experiencing, ignoring war history where every war we have fought has been full of problems and mistakes that had to be overcome.

It's sad that we have a political party who wishes defeat for our country. Their actions are giving our enemies encouragement to fight on. I can only hope that President Bush can keep his faith that he is doing the right thing and history will be kind to him.

More on Hillary Lying

There is more on Hillary lying this past weekend when she spoke in Iowa. In October 2002, she gave a speech on the Senate floor fully supporting President Bush and her vote authorizing him to use military force.

Here are a few highlights from that speech.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

Hillary Lying About Her Vote to Authorize Military Force

Back in 2003, Senator Hillary Clinton said the following to Code Pink, an anti-war group:

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not for the United States leadership, and I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. And so I see it somewhat differently. So forgive me for my experience and perspective.

Last Saturday, in Iowa, she said this about her vote to authorize military force:

I think it's the height of irresponsibility, and I really resent it. This was his decision to go to war. He went with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy, and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office.

I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies, so he took the authority that I and others gave him, and he misused it. And I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote, and I never would have voted to give this president that authority. … There are no do-overs in life. I wish there were. You know, I acted on the best judgment that I had at the time, and at the time I said this was not a vote for preemptive war, and the president took my vote and other votes and basically misused the authority we gave him

Back in 2003 she was gung-ho about going to war against Iraq and seemed to be putting the anti-war group Code Pink in their place. Now she's claiming Bush lied and basically tricked her into voting for the authority.

She's either lying, not bright enough to remember what she said about something this important, or thinks the American people are too stupid to figure out what she's doing.

Boxer Blames Republicans For "Misunderstanding" Her Remarks to Rice

Barbara Boxer thought she was being clever when she said to Ms. Rice, “You’re not going to pay any particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”

Now, of course, in classic Democrat fashion, she is blaming Republicans for what she said!! It's breathtaking.

In a separate interview, Senator Boxer said her comments had been misunderstood and were now being turned against her by the White House and other Republicans. “What I was trying to do in this exchange was to find common ground with Condi Rice,” Ms. Boxer said, adding that “my whole point was to focus on the military families who pay the price.”

“They’re getting this off on a non-existent thing that I didn’t say,” Ms. Boxer said. “I’m saying, she’s like me, we do not have families who are in the military. What they are doing is a really tortured way to attack a United States Senator who voted against the war.”

I wonder what would have happened if Condi was a Democrat and Boxer was a Republican. There would be charges of racism and sexism and calls for Boxer to resign.

Doesn't bother me anymore, I have become used to the double standard.