Iraq vs Iran, Democrats Have Consequences

The deep meaning of Ben Rhodes | Power Line:

During most of the '00s we got to listen to endless discussion about "Bush lied", his (or Cheney's) supposedly deep and dark motives for the "lies" -- money for Halliburton, they planned to kill W's daddy, neoconservative delusions, etc, etc. Everything was "false pretenses", and of course Saddam was a great guy that we would be much better off to still have torturing and killing dissidents.

In the late '70s, Jimmuh Carter lost Iran in plain site. Since he was a D, that was "inevitable" to the extent the MSM cared to cover it at all. The left likes to make the establishment of Israel as the source of "Islamic extremism", but the loss of Iran is a far more proximate genesis. Democrats never screw up, so it can't be that.

If and when an Iranian sourced nuke explodes somewhere in the world, we can rest assured that it will NOT be the fault of BO! Either there will be a close proximity R to take the blame, or some R in the past (possibly W), or the blame will go back to the creation of Israel -- or maybe just "religion". Only positive causality ever accrues to Ds ... which tends to make one wonder if they ever really "cause" anything after enough years have passed! I mean, FDR isn't responsible for problems with FICA is he?

Here is a nice concise summary of how BO misled us on Iran. When that bomb blows up, we will know that Jimmuh's 2nd and 3rd terms really did have some results beyond just the destruction of the Constitution, the US economy and the conversion of a once great nation into BOistan.

The strategic goal of the President, Doran says, was to end the conflict with Iran in order to extricate the US from the Middle East and make Iran part of the “security architecture of the region.” To do this, he misrepresented not only what was in the deal itself, but everything around it. 

Doran identified five components of the deception: 

Conjuring moderates within the Iranian government. This created a false moral equivalence between those opposed to deal in the US and Iranian hardliners, as well as a false sense of security about the concessions the US has made. 

Falsifying the chronology of negotiations, which started prior to Rouhani’s assuming office. 

Erasing US concessions. 

Hiding the regional cost, in particular with respect to Syria. Rhodes, Doran argues, tried to prevent people from connecting Obama’s Syria policy to his Iran policy (as Doran correctly identified over a year ago). 

Blaming the US’s Sunni Muslim allies as well as Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Finally, Doran points out that even today, we still don’t know the full terms of the deal.

BO is a D ... "misleading" is simply "convincing the foolish to follow him" from the MSM point of view. Nobody cares -- when it goes "blindingly boom" it won't be his fault.


'via Blog this'

NY Times Reports Iran Nuke Deal A Sham

The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru - The New York Times:

The linked article is not a bad read. The punchline is that America's foreign policy is being run  by a wanna be novelist who has mind melded with a community organizer and are purposely misleading everyone else about what they are up to.

It opens with the drama of said novelist (Rhodes) trying to manipulate the press on the day of BO's SOTU address when  "our friends" the Iranians have taken a couple patrol boats and ten sailors.

"Now, from the flat screens, a challenge to that narrative arises: Iran has seized two small boats containing 10 American sailors. Rhodes found out about the Iranian action earlier that morning but was trying to keep it out of the news until after the president’s speech. “They can’t keep a secret for two hours,” Rhodes says, with a tone of mild exasperation at the break in message discipline."

If we lived in a real world everyone would know what is obvious -- the idea of "hard liners" and "moderates" in Iran is complete fiction. Here is Leon Panetta, who served as both CIA director and Secretary of defense under BO when asked about said fiction:

“No,” Panetta answers. “There was not much question that the Quds Force and the supreme leader ran that country with a strong arm, and there was not much question that this kind of opposing view could somehow gain any traction.”

We won't go into the "background" our chief of foreign policy has other than a Masters Degree in Fiction and smoking a lot of weed -- just like our President.  But at least according to this NY Times writer, he DOES have power!

On the largest and smallest questions alike, the voice in which America speaks to the world is that of Ben Rhodes.

If you ever wondered about the veracity of the Iraq Study Group and 9/11 Commission, wonder no more ... FICTION! He did fiction well, so he was a great person to work with BO -- the fictional leader! 

“The idea of someone with a masters in fiction who had also co-authored the Iraq Study Group and 9/11 Commission reports seemed perfect for a candidate who put so much emphasis on storytelling.”

Readers of this blog already know the following paragraph, but now the NY Times concurs: 

The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false. Obama’s closest advisers always understood him to be eager to do a deal with Iran as far back as 2012, and even since the beginning of his presidency. 

So Congress, Israel, the UN and the American people were purposely misled by the BO administration, and now the NY Times is even willing to report it! Still, it seems that nobody cares. 

So when Panetta talked to Israel about the nuclear deal, here is what they wondered if BO could be trusted to stop a nuke from being produced. He after all as SAID that he would take action many times. It is one of his "red lines", and we KNOW how much he can be trusted on those!  

“They were both interested in the answer to the question, ‘Is the president serious?’ ” Panetta recalls. “And you know my view, talking with the president, was: If brought to the point where we had evidence that they’re developing an atomic weapon, I think the president is serious that he is not going to allow that to happen.”
Panetta stops. 

“But would you make that same assessment now?” I ask him. 

“Would I make that same assessment now?” he asks. “Probably not.”

So Leon Panetta, past head of CIA and SECDEF and lifelong Democrat does not believe that BO would act to stop an Iranian nuke and the freaking NY Times is willing to print it! And STILL, nobody cares! 

Iraq is his one-word answer to any and all criticism. I was against the Iraq war from the beginning, I tell Rhodes, so I understand why he perpetually returns to it. I also understand why Obama pulled the plug on America’s engagement with the Middle East, I say, but it was also true as a result that more people are dying there on his watch than died during the Bush presidency, even if very few of them are Americans. What I don’t understand is why, if America is getting out of the Middle East, we are apparently spending so much time and energy trying to strong-arm Syrian rebels into surrendering to the dictator who murdered their families, or why it is so important for Iran to maintain its supply lines to Hezbollah. He mutters something about John Kerry, and then goes off the record, to suggest, in effect, that the world of the Sunni Arabs that the American establishment built has collapsed. The buck stops with the establishment, not with Obama, who was left to clean up their mess.

 See, BO was all about "Hope and Change", and he was an "outsider" before Trump came along. If it wasn't for BO, Trump would be horribly inexperienced. Compared to BO, Trump with his years running business as an executive is a model of solid experience! Compared to Slick Willie, and even Hildebeast, Trump is a pretty much a paragon of virtue. 

One thing we are certain of, NOTHING is BO's fault! With BO, the buck NEVER stops! All of this was known in general (not the details) by anyone paying attention. What is new is that the MSM is apparently a TINY bit concerned that they too were played for patsies -- although not all that concerned. They have loved the stench of BO from the start.


'via Blog this'

Can the Left Love ISIS?

Can the Left Learn to Love ISIS? | Frontpage Mag:

An interesting discussion of similarities between the embrace of Communism in the past and the developing comity between the left and ISIS.

Islamic terrorism is excused on the same grounds that Communist terror was excused; as a response to our imperialistic foreign policy, as the outcry of the oppressed and an attempt to secure equality. Some atrocities are dismissed as myths, worries over terrorism are written off as fearmongering and terrorists are transformed into victims who were singled out by paranoid politicians for their political beliefs.

The left is using the same exact playbook on Islamic terrorism as it did on Communism.

America was founded as a Center RIGHT Republic (Left being control, right being chaos)  -- The Left continuously grows the centralized power of government until that power is TOTAL (thus "Totalitarian"). The "faith" of the left is that once complete centralized control is achieved, "utopia" is sure to result. The objective is POWER, the means are completely unimportant, and as has been seen around the world again and again they often include the killing of huge numbers of people, torture, oppression, imprisonment, etc -- ALL methods are permissible (even REQUIRED) in the creation of "heaven on earth".

Obama and Hillary contend that ISIS cannot be defeated militarily. And if it cannot be defeated militarily, the only options are Cold War containment or diplomatic outreach. It’s not too hard to imagine the arguments that will be made for the latter at the expense of the former. They were the same arguments that were made and are still being made by the left for engagement with Communist terror regimes.

 ISIS has not done anything that the Soviet Union did not do. Its ideology is thoroughly different, but both were built on swamps of atrocity, mass murder, mass rape, ethnic cleansing and raw butchery. If the left could serve the Soviet Union, who is to say that it won’t learn to love the Islamic State?

How often do we hear today that "Fighting/resisting ISIS is the worst thing we can do! They use it as a recruiting tool!" ... translation, they MUST be accommodated, we have no other choice! The refrain is exactly the same as that heard about the USSR up through the Reagan administration, when any attempts at showing strength were "playing into the hard-liners hands and going to get us all blown up!". "Better Red than Dead!"

Of course when the USSR fell, while the left tried to be as quiet as they good be as they sobbed and cried alligator tears, they attempted to calmly confuse us "oh, we KNEW this was going to happen all along! Reagan and the warmongers just slowed it down" ! (sob, sob, please pass a Kleenex, my cat just died! ....)

How often were Republicans accused of "playing into the hard-liners hands" as BO worked out handing the Bomb to Iran so they could eventually give us the "Missile Finger" with a mushroom tip!

'via Blog this'

9-11, Iran, Driving Drunk Perspective

The Iran Deal In Perspective | Power Line:

The linked column is a good one to read, I recommend it. Here are some thoughts it catalyzed for me.

Do we REALLY think that the results of the Iran "agreement" will be a mushroom cloud over NYC?  As the column points out, we certainly HOPE not, but then we never hoped for 9-11 either.

In  retrospect, might 9-11 have been predicted  / stopped? Certainly -- there were plenty of signs IN HINDSIGHT, and as I wrote about here  it was sort of a toss-up at the time in the MSM as to whether W or Reagan were just "responsible" for 9-11, or, according to something like 30% of Democrats at the peak ("Truthers"), the whole thing was an "inside job" pulled off by the dunce W and his own Dr Evil, Cheney.

If a teen takes to driving their motorcycle at night with no helmet while drinking excessively, do I really think that they are going to kill themselves? No, I again "hope not", but I realize it is a distinct possibility!

Being a "conservative" means that one is willing to look at possible negative outcomes. We all know that young people tend to be more liberal and at least gain SOME level of conservatism as they age. Today we see less of that since the left is so terribly dominant, and I'm convinced that many simply see no choice anymore -- they rely on government benefits, their AARP magazines tell them that "left is the only answer", and it becomes a "social issue" -- their kids and friends are lefties, they feel they have no choice. Besides, they feel like it is a sign of being "hopeful"!

While we hold out hope that we will see no mushroom cloud over Jerusalem of NYC, we DO already see Iran sending troops to Syria ... possibly that is the equivalent of our hypothetical drunk driving teen getting a DUI? The MSM is pretty much ignoring the Iranian troops -- the other problem with the left is that most of the people that start drinking the Kool Aide aren't even aware of a lot of what is happening. In case you didn't notice, the world is a lot less stable these days -- and we have a "deal" with one of the most destabilizing forces.

How did we get to 9-11? Complacency -- same way we got to BO, gigantic debt, bloated entitlement programs, wishful (hopeful) thinking, low percentage of people working, poor productivity, 42 million people living here not born here -- at least 11 million of them illegally, etc.

A teen driving a crotch rocket around drunk and high on weed is relatively rational and intelligent compared to BO and his foreign and domestic policies -- and one has to be some sort of a "looney" to think that anything "really bad" could result!

We can "hope" it isn't a mushroom cloud over one of our cities, but Iran doesn't need ICBMs to hit Israel! In the meantime, just watching the news makes one wonder how bad it has to get to call it "disaster"!

'via Blog this'

Snow Jobs

We seem to be enjoying the start of a normal winter here in MN. I say "seem", because although I was out riding snowmobile in December on limited snow in Dec 2004, it promptly melted and it was still a mild winter. Last winter was mild as well, but we did have a monster late-season storm and we were able to get out. It was also somewhat colder, since we were able to ride in Iron River WI on solid snow for the first time in years rather than having to go all the way to the Keweenaw Peninsula of upper Michigan.

I make these observations somewhat with tongue in cheek because although Christian, I am not a young-earth fundamentalist that believes in a 6K age of the planet. Even on that scale, trying to discern climate trends on years and decades would normally considered completely irrational. This however is the age of "Global Warming", now re-christened "climate change". Now, only the "most foolish" fail to believe that not only climate direction on a planetary scale, but causality for same as, can be discerned in years and decades. In any case, we have to "assume the worst" and "play it safe".

How different this doctrine from the believability of threat assessments by our security agencies. When they asserted that WMDs were in Iraq, only to apparently be wrong because of failure to find the weapons, the culprit was the President believing the assessment. The same security services also asserted that Iran was building nuclear weapons, but apparently decided based on new information this last summer that this was no longer true. They changed their minds, thus, it is a problem for THE PRESIDENT.

I listen to the MSM all the time, so this doesn't really surprise me. The answer these days is always "bad for Bush" ... stocks up, stocks down, deficit up, deficit down, surge bad, surge working, the answer is always "Bush Bad".

As the snow drifts down as it should in early December and we complete yet another year with well below normal hurricane activity when it was publicized after Katrina that "due to Global Warming" we would have season after season of worse and worse storms, but in '06 we had none and this year we had a single barely cat 1 qualifier, one tends to wonder.

We were assured by the left that "Iraq was all about oil", by which I guess I falsely assumed meant "cheap oil". It was $20 a barrel before the war and around $90 now. Does that mean that they were wrong, it wasn't about oil? We were assured that the Surge was "a huge mistake" and "there was no way a military solution could work". Bush was called "delusional" and worse. So now even Jack Murtha says the surge has worked? (although you have to search for that almost as hard as news of a new stock market high or yet another good economic number).

So BOTH Libya and Iran apparently decide to bail out of their covert weapons programs as the US decides to invade Iraq and that invasion gets no credit for that result? We had "No Blood for Oil", would the left feel as good with a bumper sticker saying "No Blood to Stop Nukes"?

I must have listened to 100s of NPR stories on "the failure of Bush to stop the REAL threat of Iranian (and N Korean) nukes while he "wasted our blood and treasure" in Iraq. So when the best data that we have shows that they DID stop their program at about the same time we invaded their neighbor, THAT is yet ANOTHER "failure of the Bush Administration"?

The sheep must be willing to be led off the cliff even more than usual these days.