Barack Obama’s campaign pledge, as written on his campaign website:

Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war.

George W. Bush esentially beat him to it. What he really means is, how can I bring the troops home, responsibly from Iraq?

“Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” -President Obama, February 27, 2009

Could this be a “read my lips” moment, for President Obama? Or a “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” moment:

“And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011″

Notice the wiggle-room provided in the choice of a single word?

Last Friday, President Obama delivered a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, declaring- not victory- but an end to combat operations in Iraq (ABC News link borrowed from Scott’s post):

President Barack Obama consigned the Iraq war to history Friday, declaring he will end combat operations within 18 months and open a new era of diplomacy in the Middle East.

“Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end,” Obama told Marines who are about to deploy by the thousands to the other war front, Afghanistan.

Even so, Obama will leave the bulk of troops in place this year, contrary to hopes of Democratic leaders for a speedier pullout. And after combat forces withdraw, 35,000 to 50,000 will stay behind for an additional year and half of support and counterterrorism duties.

Just six weeks into office, Obama used blunt terms and a cast-in-stone promise to write the last chapter of a war that began six years ago.

The “last chapter”?!? “Cast-in-stone promise”??….? As Iraq War critic Thomas Ricks concludes in his new book, The Gamble, “the events for which the Iraq war will be remembered probably have not yet happened.”

And as Ricks writes in his post:

The more I consider it, the more I think President Obama’s Camp Lejeune speech last Friday was about how to stay in Iraq for a while, not about how to get out.

Read the rest of this entry »

While I rarely agreed with McCain, and voted for him holding my nose, we all knew the man spoke the truth when he said he would run a bipartisan administration if elected. He has a long history of doing just that.

Meanwhile Obama spoke eloquently of reaching across the aisle and running a bipartisan administration also. No history to look at since the man doesn’t have any. So we waited.

And learned, once again, Obama lies:

“John McCain Was Right.”

That’s one headline we ought to see when President Barack Obama puts his name to the stimulus bill in Denver later today. But we won’t. And the reason points to a glaring double standard on bipartisanship.

When Mr. McCain accepted the Republican nomination for president, he noted that while he and his opponent both spoke about moving beyond partisan divisions, only one of them had a history of working with members of both parties to get things done. “I have that record and the scars to prove it,” he said. “Senator Obama does not.”

Only a month ago, with Mr. Obama holding a dinner in Mr. McCain’s honor, it wasn’t hard to imagine the two coming together on the big challenges facing our nation. But now Mr. McCain has come out strongly against the stimulus in a spirited dissent suggesting that the whole process was a “bad beginning” for someone who promised a new spirit of bipartisanship. That ought to give White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel pause, if only because it wasn’t all that long ago that Barack Obama was speaking the same way. Read the rest of this entry »

THE LIE

At his meeting with bipartisan leaders of Congress, Obama said he would make his stimulus proposal available on the Internet, with a Google-like search function to show each proposed project or program, by congressional district, according to three people who attended.

THE REALITY

In a press conference Thursday, the House Republican leadership spoke candidly about being kept out of the House-Senate conference on the Obama-Pelosi-Reid so-called “economic stimulus” bill. They confirmed they had not yet seen the text of the bill as of 4 p.m.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was unsure how many Democrats would vote with Republicans again on this bill but that he thought Republicans “may get a few” Democrats to side with them. The fact that the Demos have now broken their promise to have the public able to see the bill for 48 hours may drive more Dems into the Republican camp.

“[I] don’t know, ‘cause they haven’t seen the bill either,” Boehner said. “The American people have a right to know what’s in this bill,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) told HUMAN EVENTS after the press conference. “Every member of Congress — Republicans and Democrats — voted to post this bill on the internet for 48 hours, 48 hours ago. We’ll see if the Democrats keep their word.”

For some completely unknown reason (I just can’t possibly imagine) MSNBC has not followed up on its own article by asking Democrats what happened to the 48hr online review?

So, who DOES know what’s in the bill that Congress is going to approve? Congress doesn’t. Lobbyists do

Presidential Executive Order:

1. Torture is prohibited as defined in section 2340 of title 18, United States Code.

2. Murder, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse, taking of hostages, or performing of biological experiments is prohibited.

3. Other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel or inhuman treatment, as defined in section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code are prohibited.

4. Any other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited.

5. We are prohibited from engaging in willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency, such as sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation, forcing the individual to perform sexual acts or to pose sexually, threatening the individual with sexual mutilation, or using the individual as a human shield.

6. Acts intended to denigrate the religion, religious practices, or religious objects of the individual will not be tolerated.

Does that sound like a strong departure from the Bush Administration’s Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency?

It’s not. It IS the Bush Administration’s 2007 Executive Order 13440.

Read the rest of this entry »

Need More Troops

Dec 20, 2008
By JASON STRAZIUSO
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) – The top U.S. military officer said Saturday that the Pentagon could double the number of American forces in Afghanistan by next summer to 60,000 – the largest estimate of potential reinforcements ever publicly suggested. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that between 20,000 and 30,000 additional U.S. troops could be sent to Afghanistan to bolster the 31,000 already there.

The Army is Broken

In the last few weeks, Pelosi has released three official statements designed to highlight the comments of generals who say the military is reaching a breaking point.

“Americans are rightly concerned about how much longer our nation must continue to sacrifice our security for the sake of an Iraqi government that is unwilling or unable to secure its own future,” Pelosi said late last month, responding to comments by Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey that six years of war have left the Army “out of balance.”

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) compiled a list of examples of National Guard shortfalls in 16 states that hampered their ability to react to natural disasters or terrorist attacks. Read the rest of this entry »

In the weeks before the election, I noticed a growing number of my fellow citizens wearing Obama’s face on their t-shirts, usually in the spirit of socialist realism art. There’s not a politician alive who I admire enough to the point of worshipful adoration that I’d sport his likeness on my clothing or plaster it all over the wordsmobile (I do, however, wear my FA t-shirts with pride and enthusiastically tell people it’s a right-wing website when asked).

Read the rest of this entry »

Now this is quite interesting if true. No Quarter has the scoop:

Barack Obama has already stated an intention to appoint Republicans to his cabinet. Citing Abraham Lincoln as a precedent, Obama will even consider political enemies for powerful positions in his administration.

A source in Chicago informed me earlier today that John McCain will be meeting with Obama and his handlers tomorrow in Chicago in order to discuss the possibility of a Secretary of Defense appointment. That McCain will be in Chicago tomorrow is corroborated by an article London Times published one hour ago. The Times, however, claims McCain will most probably not be appointed to a Cabinet position. But he will be consulted on topics on which he and Obama have “common ground.” This certainly does not preclude the possibility of an appointment of McCain to Secretary of Defense.

Our source maintains that McCain will visit Chicago tomorrow in order to discuss the Secretary of Defense appointment.

Chicagoan at No Quarter raised some questions on this development, all of which leads me to believe McCain will not be appointed to the position. Obama’s campaign called McCain a warmonger and an extension of the Bush foreign policy. Just those two reasons alone makes me think a Obama appointment of McCain to SecDef would not go over to well with the MoveOn crowd….a crowd Obama relies on heavily for support. Plus, if he leaves his Senate spot to take this position, who will get his seat? The Governor of Arizona is a Democrat so a Dem would be appointed….can you say supermajority?

While this news is interesting it will not happen.

I’m sure it does signal the fact that Gates is out tho…no surprise there.

This is a long, link-heavy, almost “stream-of-consciousness” jumbled post. So be warned….

Read the rest of this entry »

As the left continues with their weird juvenile hatred of Sarah Palin with fantasies of infanticide and ignorant distortions, we get this great article on how Sarah Palin was the reason that McCain came as close as he did to Obama:

For all the tacky talk in media circles, where folks have extremely over-inflated opinions of themselves, one would think that Sarah Palin was the sole arbiter of Republican defeat this year.

What a pile of preposterous poppycock!

From the beginning of ‘08, the accepted wisdom was that no matter whom the Democrats nominated, they would deliver to the Republicans an ignominious defeat. But this year’s defeat was anything but the complete rout it was supposed to be.

And the person who nearly even saved the day — and the election — for Republicans was Sarah Palin.

This is not a minority opinion. When Rasmussen conducted detailed exit polling among Republicans, they found that a full 69% of respondents thought Sarah Palin helped — not hurt — McCain. Governor Palin has not garnered the status as America’s most highly regarded, most popular governor for nothing.

And how much do Republicans admire Sarah Palin? Far more than anyone else on our side of the aisle, according to more Rasmussen tidbits: Read the rest of this entry »

Teacher Diantha Harris browbeats McCain supporting student, Kathy,in Ashville N.Carolina grade school. The poor girl is obviously distressed over the teacher’s line of questiong and belittling her choice of candidate in front of her school mates.

Note the use of vague promises of “change”, and abusing the “100 more years of Iraq war” to McCain when addressing the military daughter/student. Also, that the war was “senseless”.

Moral of the story? Keep a close eye on what they are teaching your children in school….

He ended with as much grace as he entered this campaign in. He had so many forces battling against him that this battle was just one the American Hero could not overcome. He fought for this country when the rest of the world cried foul at the war he fought in. John McCain has always served this country and will continue to do so after this election. He is a man who is made of honor and duty. His loyalty to this country can never be questioned. His strength can never be tested.

What happened tonight may be historical in many ways. The way I take it is one completely different than those I know. This defeat has left me bitter and hurt. It’s something I will have to work to repair within myself. Am I disappointed? Yes. Not by my country but the people within the country. My words are obviously filled with anger and sadness. You would have felt the same way if Barack Obama had lost so let me have my right to grieve over this election.

My words are jumbled, rushed, and hardly eloquent right now. As everyone knows I think too much and say too little. It’s not in my nature to say everything that‘s on my mind and in my heart. Well, tonight that’s been broken. There will be no more of the quiet reader or the silent thinker. My role will be much different after today. Read the rest of this entry »

McCain sues to force Va. to count military ballots
By BOB LEWIS
Associated Press Writer

Republican John McCain’s presidential campaign sued the Virginia election board Monday, claiming absentee ballots weren’t mailed on time to military members serving overseas.
Read the rest of this entry »

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iranians marked the 1979 seizure of the U.S. embassy on Monday, a day before Americans elect a new president, with some demonstrators indifferent to the U.S. vote and a few wondering if it could help rebuild ties.

Iran has been a focus of the foreign policy debate in the U.S. campaign before Tuesday’s vote. Both candidates, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, say they will toughen sanctions. Obama says he is prepared to engage in direct talks.

Kayhan International, a hardline English-language daily, said in a column that it did not matter who won the U.S. race. “Hopefully either of the two would be presiding over the end of the U.S. domineering system, whose den of espionage was taken over this day in 1979 by Tehran University students, in a move that nipped in the bud the plots of the White House against the newfound Islamic Republic,” it wrote on its front page.

The United States cut ties with Tehran in 1980. Washington now says it is considering opening a U.S. interests section in Tehran, which would mean sending diplomats. It says this would show the United States was against Iran’s government not people. But amid “Death to America” chants outside the former U.S. mission, some wondered if Tuesday’s vote could bring change.

link