More evidence of this administration's hate towards military

Evidently earlier this year the FBI launched Operation Vigilant Eagle which searched for white supremacists and local militia groups with a focus on Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. This was a few months before the controversial DHS report on "rightwing extremism" was released.

The Democrats have made it widely known that they have no love for the military and its operations. Since 9/11, liberal Democrats have come out with crazy statements about the U.S. military and the War on Terror. Their rhetoric reached its peak during the Iraq War. Elected officials here at home badmouthed our troops, and some even went overseas to trash America and her warriors.

And now the W.H. and federal agencies consider these veterans a threat? These veterans are no more of a threat than terrorist-turned-scholar Bill Ayers and his good friend, our president.

Obama cannot charm his way to NATO hearts

Realizing that he was wrong about our victory in Iraq, President Obama has sought to make his military mark in Afghanistan with the help of NATO allies. Unfortunately, his efforts fall short:

Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister.

Just two other allies made firm offers of troops. Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12. Mr Obama’s host, Nicolas Sarkozy, refused his request.
...
Germany, Italy, Poland, Canada and Denmark said that they were considering their positions. After a meeting with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, Mr Obama tried to apply further moral pressure. “I am sure that Germany, as one of the most important leaders in Europe, will be stepping up to the plate and helping us to get the job done.”

This isn't being widely reported by the mainstream media as part of the President's hyped European G-20 tour. Why? Because it makes Obama look bad. But why aren't our European allies stepping up to the plate on Afghanistan? When Poland, Canada, and Denmark, typically our staunchest allies, still have to "think about it," then there's something very wrong.

Has the threat of the Taliban and its terror-support network diminished? Hardly. In fact, intelligence and military analysts have documented a growing Taliban.

Is the world just too caught up with the global economic recession? Maybe so, but why didn't these allies offer a few troops even as a gesture of support in the Afghan engagement?

The heart of the problem is that these world leaders see right through President Obama. They see that he was wrong about Iraq, so what makes them to be confident about his strategy in Afghanistan? They know that the President lacks foreign policy experience (they still remember his first European tour as a presidential candidate) and is trying to find a footing in that area. I think they believe that Obama is just politicking this to strengthen his reputation at home and abroad.

NATO's response would certainly have been different if it were President Bush.

Obama tries to be a great communicator

The grueling 2008 presidential campaign and was full of surprises. I don't think there's ever been such a dynamic campaign season in past history. We saw the coronation of Hillary Clinton fizzle as the junior senator from Illinois with a thin resume, Barack H. Obama, charmed and talked his way into the White House.

In the beginning it was all about the Iraq War and by association, the War on Terror. This was an easy shot for Obama, just keep talking about the "unjust" war and voters will gravitate toward the candidate. It was a good strategy and it made sense politically, but more importantly it was working. But as luck would have it, subsequently the economy faltered and everybody's eyes were on Wall Street.

In my view candidate Obama was ready to deal with the War in Iraq, but clueless about saving the economy. I'm starting to believe that his team made extra efforts in strategizing the anti-war platform without paying much attention to the economy, thinking that the War would dominate headlines throughout the campaign season and that the War would be Americans' #1 concern.

Ooooops. Big oooooops.

America won the Iraq War, albeit with great casualties -- not just the fallen soldiers, but also for some politicians. Obama swears in as President in January, and now he's faced with a much tougher issue: the economic recession. This problem cannot be tackled by withdrawing troops or cutting military spending. This problem requires seasoned, talented cabinet members, and it is fought with policies and negotiations instead of bullets and tanks.

I believe he saw the presidency as a career goal and nothing else. He cares not for America, but for his own fame. How else could you explain his obsessive and excessive use of the Teleprompter? Or appearing on TV shows? Or calling prime time press conferences? It seems that this man worries more about his own image and polling numbers than anything else. Has he realized yet that sometimes doing the right thing isn't popular?

President Ronald Reagan was a citizen's president and a great communicator. Obama definitely inspires to be like Reagan, but he is struggling big time. Both are charismatic, charming, great orators. So what made Reagan so effective but Obama so jaded?

It's something deep within, my friends. Reagan was truly passionate about defeating communism, defending America, and inspiring Americans. And Obama? He looks like a college student hoping to pass a public speaking course.

Bush was not wrong, writers are just not right

President Bush's farewell address didn't go well with many liberals. What else is new, eh?

Arianna Huffington unloads:

He was wrong about Iraq and Saddam and WMD. He was wrong to take his eye off the ball on Afghanistan. He was wrong about tax cuts being the answer to our economic woes. He was wrong about Wall Street being able to regulate itself. He was wrong about Katrina. He was wrong about torture. He was wrong about extraordinary rendition. He was wrong about warrantless wiretapping. He was wrong about Gitmo. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Calm down, Huffy! The only two things I may even agree with are Afghanistan and Katrina. However, he did own up to them and corrected the wrongs fairly quickly. Everything else -- Iraq, Saddam, WMD, torture, rendition, wiretapping, Gitmo -- well, America is kept safe since 9/11. I have to thank the President for that.

Gerard Baker, calling Bush "the epitome of ineptitude," among many other things:

Around the world the Bush name is synonymous with arrogance, ignorance, reckless insouciance, torture, violence and ineptitude. And those would be from America's friends. He leaves office with his country facing the worst economic crisis since (take your pick) Jimmy Carter or Herbert Hoover left town, two of his predecessors now firmly ensconced in the presidential Hall of Infamy.

Lots of SAT words there. Sure, blame the economy on him, too! Why didn't you write something when Bush's economic policies were making you tons of money in real estate and stocks? Please seek professional help for your Severe BDS...

And the President just can't catch a break, not even on the home front. Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), also the Judiciary Committee chairman, wants to investigate and probe the Bush administration:

First, Congress should continue to pursue its document requests and subpoenas that were stonewalled under President Bush. Doing so will make clear that no executive can forever hide its misdeeds from the public.

Second, Congress should create an independent blue-ribbon panel or similar body to investigate a host of previously unreviewable activities of the Bush administration, including its detention, interrogation and surveillance programs. Only by chronicling and confronting the past in a comprehensive, bipartisan fashion can we reclaim our moral authority and establish a credible path forward to meet the complex challenges of a post-Sept. 11 world.

Third, the new administration should conduct an independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities. Just this week, in the pages of this newspaper, a Guantanamo Bay official acknowledged that a suspect there had been "tortured" -- her exact word -- in apparent violation of the law. The law is the law, and, if criminal conduct occurred, those responsible -- particularly those who ordered and approved the violations -- must be held accountable.

I'm sure all in the name of civil liberty and accountability. Looks more like crucifying an outgoing president and his inner circle when Rep. Conyers enjoys the Democrat majorities in the Senate and House, and an incoming Democratic president. How about an investigation into Conyers' babysitter? Good grief. And this guy's the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

But of course, it's all about Bush and not anyone else...

No BDS relief in sight even as Bush nears end of term

You just can't win with these BDS sufferers.

When Bush got elected and re-elected, liberals from near and far came out on the offense to label him as a dumb cowboy-wannabe from Texas who entered the White House thanks to his daddy and also managed to steal the 2004 election.

Now Bush is about to leave Washington and the liberal media still won't let him go in peace.

Journalism maven Helen Thomas writes about more "bizarre Bushisms":

On the Middle East crisis, his double standard was in full display.

Bush said he remained an opponent of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, which has been invaded by Israel. He found only the firing of rockets by Hamas unacceptable, but expressed no sympathy for the Palestinians who are suffering heavy Israeli bombardment with American-supplied weapons.

Bush told the news conference: "Israel has a right to defend itself." He did not say the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. He also said the Gazans have to stop smuggling arms. But he said nothing about the tons of arms we have supplied Israel.

As for the global economic meltdown, the president admitted he had to abandon his free-market principles and approve of massive government intervention in the economy. He said this switcheroo was required in order to save the free market system. The logic evoked the Vietnam era when we had to destroy a village in order to save it.

Come on, Helen. Of course the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves, but the fact remains that Hamas provoked Israel by lobbing rockets across the border, striking fear and killing innocent Jews in the border towns. Also, sending bomb-strapped crazies into crowded Israeli markets doesn't sound like a defensive maneuver to me, either. Do you condone the horrible terrorist acts of Hamas?

And about the economy, I'm sure if Bush had stuck to free market principles and let capitalism work its way slowly and painfully into recovery, Thomas and her liberals critics would attack that "Bushism" with no end in sight. Seriously, it's a no-win situation for President Bush. Liberals will always have something to pick on.

Don't even bring up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush's decisiveness and resolve saved thousands more lives around the world. Thomas ought to read the article from The Telegraph's Andrew Robert.

That should provide enough answers to Michael J.W. Stickings' questions about Cheney:

I'm all for liberation, too, but are the people of Iraq truly free? Is there really a vibrant democracy there? And in Afghanistan, what of the ongoing war and instability there? It's not enough just to believe in your own high-falutin' rhetoric of freedom and democracy. It's not enough just to say that there have been such accomplishments, such historic progress. There's the not-so-little matter of the facts on the ground to consider, and the facts don't really back him up, do they? And what Cheney does not consider is not just those facts but that his own policies -- or, rather, Bush's -- have hindered progress in both Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as elsewhere, including in Iran, in North Korea, and with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Even granting him that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do -- which, in retrospect, I'm not about to do -- what about what came after the invasion? So too in Afghanistan. What about what came after the overthrow of the Taliban, specifically the immediate turn to Iraq and the failure to go after al Qaeda with full determination? And then, what about the gross mismanagement of the war in Iraq, and how Iraq turned into a cesspool of terrorism and sectarianism?

So give it a rest. Iraq is much, much better without the psychotic tyrant Saddam Hussein. Absorb that fact. Learn to live with it. Bush and Cheney did the right thing.

Bush and Cheney's secret missions

Amen, and thank you, Mr. President:

"People say, 'Why would you do that?'" the president said in an Oval Office interview with The Washington Times on Friday. "And the answer is: This is my duty. The president is commander in chief, but the president is often comforter in chief, as well. It is my duty to be - to try to comfort as best as I humanly can a loved one who is in anguish."

Mr. Bush, for instance, has sent personal letters to the families of every one of the more than 4,000 troops who have died in the two wars, an enormous personal effort that consumed hours of his time and escaped public notice. The task, along with meeting family members of troops killed in action, has been so wrenching - balancing the anger, grief and pride of families coping with the loss symbolized by a flag-draped coffin - that the president often leaned on his wife, Laura, for emotional support.

"I lean on the Almighty and Laura," Mr. Bush said in the interview. "She has been very reassuring, very calming."

Zaidi becoming poster boy of BDS sufferers

The crazy BDS left is loving the story of Zaidi, the shoe-hurler who missed President Bush during a press conference, but quickly becoming the anti-American celebrity at home and abroad. Look at how worked up "Kathy" is from Comments from Left Field:

I did not feel one scrap of sympathy for Bush — although I will admit I felt grudging admiration for his poise and quick reflexes in the moment. But any sympathy or respect I might have felt for Bush vanished with “So?” and “It was amusing.” It was amusing? F*** you, you bastard. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, thousands of children who will never see their parents again, wives who will never see their husbands, families who are living in refugee camps in Syria and Jordan, are amusing? And don’t tell me Bush didn’t mean that, because al-Zaidi said it, as clear as crystal.

By the way, I had to censor the expletive because this is a G-rated blog. Kathy sympathizes with those Iraqis who suffered because of the war and clearly blames the president. She's living up to the compassionate liberal label. But her worldview proves she's ignorant and irrational. I'd hate to break it to you, Ms. Kathy, but even before the first Marine stepped foot on Iraqi soil, there were already hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, thousands of orphans, widows, and refugees from Saddam Hussein's tyranny.

She's definitely out in the left field. Way out.

O Iraq, America fought for your right to throw a shoe at her

President Bush made a surprise visit to Baghdad on Sunday, and an Iraqi TV journalist surprised the world (and the Secret Service) by throwing a shoe at him. Luckily, the nimble President was able to dodge the projectile without harm as others in the press conference jumped on Muntader al-Zaidi. Obviously all anti-American Arabs are hailing al-Zaidi as a hero! Thousands rally in Iraq, Syria, and Libya to support Zaidi and his "courageous" action.

No doubt this was highly embarrassing for the Iraqi government. Not just the fact that one of its accredited journalists wanted to harm a visiting head of state, but the American president. The leader of the country that forced Saddam and his sadistic posse out of power, liberating the oppressed Iraqi people. The American president who made the tough decision to send American young men and women to war, knowing that some of them will die fighting for the freedom of strangers. The American president who steadfastly remained committed to a free, self-governing Iraq, while approval ratings at home tanked to a new low.

Yes, let the world see that flying shoe. Some will gladly see the American president duck for cover. Others will let out a sigh of relief that he's unharmed, and thank in their hearts for the freedom to throw a shoe at such a man.

Finally, peace in Iraq

What a great report about Iraq shared by Michael Yon. This is something you won't see on the mainstream media!

Obama obstructed Iraq security effort

Is there a presidential candidate more arrogant than Obama??? He's acting like he's already the president. Remember the Obama "presidential seal" gaffe? Or his whirlwind tour of Europe, meeting the European heads of state? Now we learn that he privately urged Iraqi leaders to delay the agreement being negotiated with the White House until next year when a new president is inaugurated.

Here we have a United States senator undermining the efforts of the current administration. This is like the times when a few Democrats went overseas to badmouth the administration. This is like when Nancy Pelosi went overseas to criticize the president. No shame.

Obama asked for delayed troop withdrawal

Since the beginning of Obama's campaign (which is when he became a junior senator), he has made an issue with withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq. He wanted them to come home immediately, no matter the cost to Americans and to Iraqis. But according to Amir Taheri of the New York Post:

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

So while in Iraq, Obama actually "demanded" that the withdrawal of troops be delayed until the election is over and a new administration takes office! What was he trying to pull? Did he want to be the Commander-in-Chief, if elected, to bring home the troops so he'd look good?

More evidence that this man is manipulative and dangerous. He will step over anyone and say anything to have power.