Obama’s Move into Afghanistan was Never more than a Political Stunt!

Afghan Ambivalence

By Oliver North

WASHINGTON — Four years ago, when then-Sen. Barack Obama was campaigning for president, he said of Afghanistan: This is “a war that we have to win.” He also claimed, “The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.” But after three years of Obama’s being commander in chief, it ought to be clear that he never really believed his own campaign rhetoric. Now, in the aftermath of recent setbacks, his words are further evidence of presidential ambivalence and uncertainty. None of this bodes well for those who hope for a positive outcome in the shadows of the Hindu Kush.

This week, after a U.S. soldier allegedly killed 16 Afghan civilians in Panjwai, a hamlet in Kandahar province, Obama appropriately promised to “make sure that anybody who was involved is held fully accountable with the full force of the law.” Though Defense Secretary Leon Panetta reiterated this commitment during a long-planned but unannounced two-day visit to Afghanistan, other unanticipated events — a reality in all wars — clouded the message.

Even before Panetta arrived, Afghan President Hamid Karzai was demanding that U.S. and NATO troops cease combat operations in populated areas and be confined to major bases. Then, as Panetta’s aircraft approached Camp Leatherneck in Helmand province, an Afghan national crashed a commandeered pickup truck, which burst into flames just off the base runway. By the time Panetta arrived at a meeting with American, British and Afghan personnel, U.S. Marines and British troops that mustered for a “meet and greet” with the secretary had been ordered to remove their weapons from the site.

Pentagon spokesman George Little told reporters that the unprecedented order to disarm was “unrelated” to the runway incident. But other officials, speaking on background, said the decision was prompted by “an abundance of caution” after six Americans were murdered last month by Afghan personnel. Yet another story in widespread circulation attributed the order to “fairness” for Afghan troops, who are “not allowed to carry weapons in the presence of senior U.S. officials.” Whatever the truth, the order quickly became a public relations nightmare — and yet another distraction in shoring up public support for those who are fighting this long and difficult war. For that, Obama has no one to blame but himself.

Ever since he decided to provide fewer “surge troops” than requested by his hand-picked battlefield commander and announced an arbitrary “timetable for withdrawal” during a speech in December 2009, the president’s rhetoric has been devoid of words about “winning,” “defeating the Taliban” or even “peace and security for the Afghan people.” Gone, too, is any attempt at comity with Karzai. And while Obama repeatedly reminds us that “we got Osama bin Laden,” his efforts to repair relations with neighboring Pakistan have ground to a halt.

This week, in the aftermath of multiple reversals on the ground, the president reiterated that he still intends to withdraw 23,000 of the 91,000 U.S. troops currently deployed in Afghanistan before our presidential election — and before the “fighting season” comes to an end. In Kabul, Panetta renewed the administration’s commitment to “bringing home” all of the remaining 68,000 U.S. troops by 2014.

Taliban leaders immediately announced that they were suspending long-awaited “peace and reconciliation talks” in Qatar because of the “shaky, erratic and vague standpoint of the Americans.” What they didn’t say is what everyone already knows: The O-Team is getting out of Afghanistan no matter what’s happening on the battlefield. All the Taliban have to do is wait until we’re gone.

Obama still claims he is “confident that we can continue the work of meeting our objectives” and “accomplish the mission” while implementing his “exit strategy.” But then he says his goal is to “responsibly wind down this war” and “bring our troops home.” This isn’t a “strategy,” and it’s not a valid reason to send young Americans into harm’s way in one of the most difficult and dangerous places on earth. The commander in chief we hired nearly four years ago still hasn’t learned that the only “responsible” way to end a war is to win it.

On the day Taliban leaders announced they were pulling out of any further talks, I was visiting Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. While I was there, the mother of a severely wounded Marine said to me, “I hope my son’s sacrifice was not in vain.” I share her hope. We all should — even our ambivalent commander in chief.”

The troubled mind of Eric Holder

by Troy Senik   at  the Daily Caller:

“The position of attorney general of the United States of America ought to command the highest level of respect. One of only four cabinet positions that can trace its origins to the administration of George Washington, it is among the highest stations in American life: chief law enforcement officer of a constitutional republic that stands, like no other country in the world, for the concept of equality before the law.

Yet during the tenure of Eric Holder, the Justice Department has become anything but a neutral arbiter. Indeed, who you are — and how that identity fits into the political schema of the left — is the most accurate predictor of what kind of treatment you’ll receive from the DOJ.

We were reminded of that unfortunate reality earlier this week, when Holder’s Justice Department announced that it was prohibiting the implementation of a Texas law requiring voters to present photo identification, claiming that it violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act (the DOJ had taken similar action against South Carolina in December.

Both cases are based on tortured rationales that requiring photo identification — which both states will provide to voters for free — discriminates against minority voters. And both states are suing in response. Yet, regardless of the outcomes of those cases, we can be sure that we haven’t seen the last of Holder’s racialist crusades. Since the very beginning of the Obama administration, his fixation on racial issues has been as consistent as it is divisive.

The first sign of this pernicious trend came in the earliest days of Holder’s tenure, when his Justice Department refused to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party who stood outside a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 wearing paramilitary outfits and shouting racial slurs at white voters while one of them brandished a billy club. While video of the incident left the public aghast, the DOJ dropped nearly all of the charges and dramatically narrowed the others, claiming the press had overblown the entire affair.

Amidst allegations that senior Justice Department officials wanted the case killed because they didn’t believe that civil rights laws should apply to white voters, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights launched an investigation. During that time, one Justice Department official, J. Christian Adams, resigned his position after his superiors instructed him not to respond to a subpoena.

Attorney General Holder, for his part, was unmoved. When grilled on Capitol Hill about the Justice Department’s failure to follow through on the case, Holder snapped when Republican Congressman John Culbertson of Texas quoted Democratic activist Bartle Bull — who witnessed the event — as saying that it was “the most blatant form of voter discrimination I have encountered in my life.”

“Think about that,” replied the petulant attorney general. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the ’60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia — which was inappropriate, certainly that … to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people.”

Continued on Page 2 >>

 

Obama Lies ‘Two for a Penny’ in Campaign Film: The ‘Road We’ve Traveled’.

Here we go: Full-length Obama campaign

documentary debuts

 by Allahpundit   at   HotAir:

The official title: “The Road We’ve Traveled.” My title: Three Years of Glory.

It’s all here. Protracted high unemployment, a catastrophic health-care boondoggle, aimlessness in Afghanistan, Iran nearing nuclear breakout capacity, soaring gas prices, and of course historic deficits on top of a looming entitlements-driven fiscal meltdown. Narrated by Tom Hanks and directed by a guy who can’t find a single fault with Obama even though he also directed “Waiting for Superman,” a movie about unions and their political cronies ruining education for kids. Ahem.

Pop some popcorn and settle in. It’s magic time.

Click below for video:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/15/here-we-go-full-length-obama-campaign-documentary-debuts/

The Jeremiah Wright Travels:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hPR5jnjtLo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwQWuQVE6sw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc2FCJ7zWEQ

Mitch McConnell Shines at AIPAC Meeting!

Mitch McConnell: Man with a plan

 

by Scott Johnson     at   PowerLine:

At the AIPAC policy conference last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gave a serious, substantive, unflashy, stalwart speech on Iran that directly addressed the pathetic weakness radiated by the Obama administration. In every significant respect, Senator McConnell is the unObama. My attention was drawn to Senator McConnell’s speech by Judith Levy, who aptly summarized it in her terrific review of the AIPAC proceedings:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) projected a powerful combination of the charmingly avuncular Southern gentleman and the butt-kicking, name-taking quiet man whom you cross at your peril. He dismissed Obama’s Iran policy as flawed because of its refusal to delineate clear military consequences to Iranian provocation, and stated that if sufficient intelligence were gleaned indicating that Iran was pursuing the bomb, he would personally introduce authorization to Congress for the use of “overwhelming” military force to prevent Iran from enriching uranium to weapons-grade level. The crowd ate it up, and I confess that I’m an avid new fan.

The text of Senator McConnell’s speech is here. The video is below.

Here is the part of the speech that caught Levy’s attention:

In my judgment, there is broad bipartisan support for the administration’s stated goal with respect to Iran, and a strong declaratory policy like this can be expected to have the support of strong majorities of both parties in Congress, and thus the solid support of the American people.

All that’s been lacking until now is a clear, declaratory policy. And if the administration is reluctant for some reason to articulate it, then Congress will attempt to do it for him.

[T]onight I make the following commitment in support of the policy I have proposed: if at any time the intelligence community presents the Congress with an assessment that Iran has begun to enrich uranium to weapons grade levels, or has taken a decision to develop a nuclear weapon — consistent with protecting classified sources and methods — I will consult with the President and joint congressional leadership and introduce before the Senate an authorization for the use of military force.

This authorization, if enacted, will ensure the nation and the world that our leaders are united in confronting Iran, and will undermine the perception that the U.S. is wounded or retreating from global responsibilities.

The authority will be focused to ensure the people of Iran and the international community that our disagreement is not with the population of Iran or the Muslim world. This authorization will not prevent the administration from pursuing diplomatic measures, continued negotiations and consultation with our allies. On the contrary, it will strengthen these efforts.

This authorization will make clear that any effort by Iran or its proxy forces to retaliate against the interests of the United States whether our personnel, our bases or freedom of the seas will be met by overwhelming force.

For the U.S., this debate and ultimate passage of an authorization for the use of military force ensures that we have a coherent, unified policy toward Iran and that we not take on another military action without bipartisan support. A decision to take military action against Iran should not be taken lightly. It should have the bipartisan support of Congress.

It’s a good commitment, but potential problems with it occur to me. The tortured role played by the American intelligence community in respect of Iran does not need  to be revisited here — see, e.g., Michael Anton’s 2010 Weekly Standard post— but it should be kept in mind. One wonders if the intelligence community can play the role envisioned by Senator McConnell in good faith. One also wonders about its capacity to play this role.

I reached out to a spokesman for Senator McConnell to ask: “Can you tell me if Senator McConnell is confident we would know when Iran is enriching to weapons grade? He implies the intelligence would be there, but is that true?”

Senator McConnell’s spokesman responded: “I can say that Leader McConnell stands by the commitment he made in his speech, but we can’t discuss matters related to intelligence any further than that, I’m afraid.”

Whatever the problems, the commitment merits serious discussion. This is one area in which the Senate has been leading the Obama administration from the front.

Click on below for video of Senator McConnell’s speech:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/mitch-mcconnell-man-with-a-plan.php

Blago off to Jail for a few Years……If B.O. Loses in November, Blago will be Pardoned

Not all of Blagojevich’s missteps were criminal,

 some were just stupid

Ex-governor veered from the Chicago Way, now he’s paying the price

by John Kass     at the Chicago Tribune:

“…….He’ll be around 67 years old when he leaves prison, old and gray and without prospects, but you wouldn’t know it from his defiant goodbye speech, with the groupies chanting “Free our governor!” and lumps forming in the throats of some broadcast journalists who should know better.

“I believe I always, always thought about what was right for the people,” Blagojevich said. “… When I became governor I fought a lot. And maybe I fought too much. And maybe one of the lessons to this whole story is that you’ve got to be a little bit more humble. You can never have enough humility. And maybe I could have had more of that.”

If he were truly humble he’d have shut the heck up, or at least admitted his guilt, instead of playing the sad yet fiendish imp from some Fellini movie, thrilled to be at the center of his own carnival, with morons trying to drape an American flag on his shoulders, and Rod babbling about hubris and how the Greeks understood that suffering comes before wisdom.

The only time he almost touched the truth was in that bit about his hubris.

Of course, Blagojevich is absolutely guilty of corruption. He tried to sell the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama. He tried to shake down a children’s hospital. He was revealed as a cheap hustler, and he deserves what’s coming to him.

Yet corruption isn’t enough to explain his fall. It’s too easy. It won’t help us understand this crooked state we live in. And it won’t explain why he’ll be a human trivia question in a few months, and why his former rival and fellow Chicago Democratic machine creature, Obama, is moving toward a second term in the White House.

Chicago is a thoroughly corrupt city. Illinois is a thoroughly corrupt state. We have many politicians who are corrupt. But the alpha males don’t go to prison.

Sure, the eager hatchlings and the fools go, and fall-guy governors, and the weak-minded and the lazy. And they have years to learn about the currency of federal prison — the pouches of dried fish and postage stamps. Their wives cry and their children miss them.

But not the dominant males. Not the alphas. They’re insulated and isolated. They don’t grab with their own hands. All they have to do is wait and treasure falls in their laps, all under the color of law. They place their offspring in positions of power, and they have their behinds smooched by the establishment.

Corruption isn’t the reason Blagojevich is going. The reason he’s going is that he violated the rules. Despite his eager charm and ability to quote Kipling, he wasn’t smart enough to follow the well-lit path known as the Chicago Way.

He was brought into politics by his father-in-law, Ald. Richard Mell, 33rd, the North Side ward boss. Mell spoke for him with serious men in and around politics, and Blagojevich was made governor. There was talk of Rod becoming president one day.

And then Blagojevich’s hubris got him. He fought publicly with Mell, alleging Mell was using influence over a landfill in Will County. There are two things that smart Chicago politicians never do in Illinois:

They never raise their voices about landfills. And they don’t fight with the guy who brought them to the dance.

Mell fired back, saying that the FBI should investigate his son-in-law for selling jobs. But even before the FBI could jump, it was over. Nobody in politics trusted Blagojevich from then on. Without Mell’s protection — and that of Mell’s friends like House Speaker Michael Madigan — all that was left was to pick the bones clean.

So Blagojevich, twice elected governor, started hustling for cash, exposing himself to prosecution. He had to figure out what he could sell to buy himself a six-figure job after he left office. I’m not excusing him. He’s 100 percent guilty. But if he had played ball, he would have been protected. He wouldn’t have had to sell a thing. Good fortune would have blessed him.

Smart Chicago politicians understand this, guys like Obama. I’m not accusing the president of corruption, although he and Blagojevich shared a friendship with the same influence peddler, Tony Rezko.

The young Obama played the reformer, yes, but that was only a show for an adoring media. Obama would never dare challenge the alphas of Illinois. I remember being in the editorial board room at the Tribune Tower when Obama revealed this important and always overlooked aspect of his character.

“I think I have done a good job in rising politically in this environment without being entangled in some of the traditional problems of Chicago politics,” Obama told me at the onset of his presidential campaign.

“I know there are those like John Kass who would like me to decry Chicago politics more frequently, and I’ll leave that to his editorial commentary,” Obama said, gifting me with that jewel.

Thanks, Mr. President. My commentary?

Obama walked quietly along the Chicago Way and became president.

And Blagojevich didn’t, and now he’s gone.”