Let's Hope BO Never Learns

RealClearPolitics - Obama Gets It Wrong on Churchill & Torture

Not a badly written article -- covers the same issue on BO being wrong on Britan torturing in WWII. Brings in the point that things like firebombing Dresden, nuking Hiroshama and Nagasaki, allowing Coventry to be bombed to protect the knowledge of the codebreaking, interning Japanese in the US and no doubt thousands of other things in WWII (or any war) are "shortcuts".

War is about inflicting more pain on your enemy than on your own soldiers and civilians -- that is how one is most likely to win the war. It isn't a pretty thing, that is why we call it War. There was a brief time in Europe when war was at least visualized to have "honor" -- the British wore red coats and marched in columns while the "terrorists" of the day, the US forces hid in the woods and picked them off. The British found that to be "dishonorable" -- we called it "winning".

I think his last paragraph hits the nail on the head. In "ugly things", we are OFTEN working very hard to find a "shortcut" -- maybe some old surgeon would say that orthoscopic surgery is a "shortcut" for example. Maybe another 3, 5, 10 or even 100K Americans could have died not finding out one or more plot that was discovered by "putting the screws to" the guys that had information that helped the Bush administration stop the attacks. Were those American's lives worth less than what BO sees as "the character cost" of having a known al Quaeda opertive exposed to the same techniqe we use on our own troops to simulate torture?

Maybe BO doesn't understand "simulated vs real". Why did he need a "real" picture of Air Force One flying at low level around NYC? It was fake anyway -- it isn't AF-1 unless the President is on it. It is the person of the President on the plane that gives it that designation, not the paint job. A photoshop using the plane taken when he was on it (or any other President -- it is the OFFICE that has the majesty, not the person or the props!) with the Statue of Liberty in the background would be identically as "genuine" -- at least the plane would be real!

It might seem otherwise, but I'm not making the case for what some people see as torture. I'm simply noting that war is always about shortcuts - all are horrible; some are necessary. If Obama doesn't understand that, let's hope he never has to learn it.

Beneath Contempt

RealClearPolitics - Pelosi: Utterly Contemptible

Charles is pretty easy on Pelosi, this is beneath contempt. It is another lesson in how the Statist mind works:

In 2007, she admitted that she was briefed BEFORE the methods were used:

In December 2007, after a Washington Post report that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that she'd been "briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future."

Now she is "repeatably clear" that they were NOT told AFTER ... this is precisely like Slick Willie with "there is currently no ..." -- "that depends on what the meaning of is ... is":

"we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."

Here is what Porter Goss says about the briefings:

Porter Goss, then chairman of the House intelligence committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda."

So what are we to make of this? She was in the briefings where she was briefed on what they CIA was PLANNING to do, and did not object, and in fact at a minimum went along with folks asking if the CIA needed MORE support to carry this out!

So, when would one expect someone opposed to these methods a supervisory role to object? BEFORE they are carried out? or AFTER they are carried out?? If they objected AFTER, what kind of oversight is that? "Go ahead and get this information with my blessing, and even offer of added support, but after you get the information, let me denigrate the methods I approved and seek to impugn and even prosecute you for using them??"

How does that mange to rise to the standard of "contemptable"? This is beneath contept -- this is a lying weasel of the worst sort.

Shocked!!! Britan DID Torture in WWII

The secrets of the London Cage | UK news | The Guardian


Can it be? BO **LIED**!!!!
It is only fair to hold him to the same standard as Bush, right? ... also, since BO is omniscient, there is no chance that he didn't know.

Is it REALLY a surprise to ANYONE that the Brits tortured German prisoners to get information to save the lives of their people and their soldiers??? How about if they hadn't and the war was lost? Would the modern moralists think that a better outcome???

Again, we aren't talking "fuzzy caterpillars and things we do to our own folks" -- we are talking "being beaten until they begged to be killed". I'm betting that "left a mark".

Ann On "Torture"

Ann Coulter : Muslims: 'We Do That on First Dates' - Townhall.com

I like to read her, I'm sorry. The fuzzy caterpillar torture is just too much -- I may recall evil little boys that would even tell the girls that the caterpillar would bite -- although I suppose all of them grew of to be Republicans or mass murderers ... oh wait, same thing.

Imagine an alternate universe where Ann could be elected Senator from the Republican party like her best equivalent from the Democrat side, Franken. It is hard to even imagine -- the Democrat candidate would have to be as bad as Franken for even me to consider going out and voting for her, but just try to imagine today's media and left wing if Ann Coulter was being elected Senator in a very close and questionable race ... especially if it would give the Republicans 60 votes in the Senate!!!!

Just give a moment of thought to another "shoe on the other foot" ... If a Democrat had been indicted and convicted the week of the election, lost by <1% and then the charges were subsequently dropped like Ted Stevens in AK? They were apocoplytic about Max Cleland being defeated in GA in 04 because someone questioned his voting record on military issues! He lost limbs in Vietnam, nobody ought to be able to question a Democrat on the issues if he was injured in war!!! (of course, no such pass for a Republican, see Bob Dole) I personally read a book, purchased at a Barnes and Noble on "The Assassination of Paul Wellstone" -- the Dems and MSM were bleating for years on how "unfair" it was for Republicans to show pictures of the Dems hooting and hollering for blood at his memorial service!!! Egads, showing the public how Democrats act! The Republican's evil knows no bounds.

Suppose if Ann Coulter was on the verge of being elected as the 60th vote, Lieberman had just switched to the Republicans to make that possible, and 1 of the seats now owned by the Republicans was due to indictment / conviction / charges DROPPED??

Considering how berserk they went in 2000 and '04, I simply can't imagine where the left would be at were the shoes on the other foot. Well, this is the country we live in -- there is really no such thing as too far left, and any concerns from the right are either ludicrous, unpatriotic, dangerous, or all of the above!

Early to Regret

RealClearPolitics - We Will Regret 'Post-American' Outcome

I suppose some folks will have to wait for the future to experience their regret -- mine started right after the 2006 election.

I have always believed that there are many ways to love America. Sharing my politics is not a precondition. I have watched elected officials denigrate a war in progress (that we are now winning), soften borders that once protected us, erode cultural standards that once united us, and now attack an economic crisis not with an energizing call to boldness and courage but with astonishing spending designed to spawn dependency and thus political obedience.

This new era requires America be brought down several notches, laid low by the frustrations and envies of rivals, taught a lesson about excessive pride. Our president is more than glad to direct us to this new humility. It is evident in his economic strategies, which liquefy wealth in a blender of socialism and environmental extremism. It is evident in his foreign policy, which kowtows to tyrants and comforts terrorists with the assurance of an America ready to step down as alpha male to become just another animal in the pack.

This is supposed to make the world like us better. It may, in the short term, until the dictators given room to breathe by an enfeebled America choose to broaden their adventures.

And when that time comes - and the world turns to America, as it has for centuries, only to find that we are no longer a superpower but just an ordinary neighbor - I hope those who favored and helped raise the curtain on the "post-American" world are stricken with a horror and regret that only the great tragedies of history can impart.

BO's Economic War on America: Day 100

The Real Culture War Is Over Capitalism - WSJ.com

To put a modern twist on the old axiom, a man who is not a socialist at 20 has no heart; a man who is still a socialist at 40 either has no head, or pays no taxes. Social Democrats are working to create a society where the majority are net recipients of the "sharing economy." They are fighting a culture war of attrition with economic tools. Defenders of capitalism risk getting caught flat-footed with increasingly antiquated arguments that free enterprise is a Main Street pocketbook issue. Progressives are working relentlessly to see that it is not.

That is pretty much the core -- the Democrats wrote article after article about how the evil Carl Rove was out to create "a permanent majority" from a coalition of the religious, the investor, the believer in American exceptionalism and the "working nuclear family". That is actually what politics is SUPPOSED to be about, it is called "representative government".

The Democrats strategy is far simpler, but like a lot of their strategies, it is antithetical to the core values of America and will destroy the heart and soul of the nation. They want to create a PAID majority of the net recipients of government largess ... through increasing the number of government owed business (auto as an early example, healthcare to come ... 17% of the economy), deciding who can get money and who can't (banking and finance), as well as the usual dogs breakfast of benefits for dependence, penalties for independence.

There needs to be a battle for the heart of America, but Republicans are now beset with an extreme lack of LEADERSHIP!! Not surprising considering the high cost of sticking ones head up as a Republican, but never the less, an extreme problem for the way forward.

Another 100 Days Retrospective

100 DAYS, 100 MISTAKES FOR BARACK OBAMA - New York Post

These guys are a bit less positive than the MSM. Some of it is pretty ticky tack, but OTOH, had Bush governed like BO in first 100 days, they would have started impeachment proceedings. The Leno "special olympics" comment would have likely have been enough, but the Manhattan fly-by and "lying" about the British "never stooping to torture" would have certainly got the proceedings started at least in the MSM!

TOTUS

Teleprompter Of The US



BO is a good reader in front of groups of people. Is that what is called "leadership" these days?

Democrats on Debt

Last I recall, the Democrats claim to have turned into deficit hawks. Things haven't gone so well since they took over congress in '06.

Ever Hear of Photo Shop??

'Furious' Obama orders review of NY plane flyover - CNN.com

So who was paying for this? "Training mission" -- what a line of BS. Clearly this was a photo op for some campaign donor gimme. My bet would be BO's Christmas calendar to be sent to all the Wall Street, Banking and Union fat cats that paid the freight on his bloated campaign and have already been paid in WAY more than full by taxpayers!!!

So BO will throw someone else under the Bus. I'm SURE that the press would be letting Bush dodge responsibility if he was "furious". Ha!

Come on you completely biased MSM! Can't you even glimpse the disdain for the "common man" that your royal pain in the Butt BO has!

The Real Pirate Story

The "Real" story about the Somalia pirates and the NAVY SEAL'S

Lots more detail and it sounds a bit more realistic relative to the "BO orders". My guess is that the Bainbridge Captain was the real "decider" here. BO is far more qualified to decide things like low passes over Manhattan on a Monday than life and death issues.

In any case, it makes one proud to read it.

BO Stops No Bucks

White House apologizes for low-flying plane - CNN.com

The BO media love fest is truly amazing to watch. Gee, I wonder who it is that would have been responsible had one of the AF-1 747's been dispatched over lower Manhattan for a "photo op" during the Bush administration???


So why are BO's popularity numbers high? EVERYTHING at this point that can be cast in some sort of a positive light is attributed to his brilliance, and NOTHING that is "stupid, ham-handed, or just flat out a human error, made by all" is attributed to his worshipfulness.

Again, **IF THE TREATMENT OF BOTH PARTIES WAS THE SAME** this level of treatment for a story would be fine by me -- report it, blame the staffie that did it and the the FAA, and just "move on". Were the shoe on the other foot though, responsibility would be driven to the top (where it always is, but can never be fully covered because we really do put humans in those positions). I'd bet dollars to donuts if the shoe were on the other foot we would have to be talking about "how much did this cost" -- and "is this a campaign expense, or a legitimate government expense?".

I can't imagine it being useful for anything but a campaign expense -- but I'll bet it isn't being charged that way by BO, and no doubt after the hullabaloo got over, it would have to be by a Republican. A Republican President woudl lose the WEEKS news cycle on this and come out -- "how did it happen", "when did you know", "what was the purpose?", "what did it cost and who is paying"?, "will there be reimbursement of the companies that lost work hours for people having to leave the office?" ... lawsuits for pain and suffering for those that were there on 9-11 ... the list would just go ON and ON and ON ... until even most moderates would just be SICK of it.

However, to follow what happened in the Bush administration, such things leave a "bad taste in your mouth" even if you generally agree with the President's politics and even him personally -- seeing stuff like this drug through the media for a week, or weeks is just "unseemly", it adds "the patina of incompetence". Were the shoe on the other foot, I may well be unhappy primarily with the media, but I would be "unhappy" -- and clearly would realize that if someone in the WH had not made a mistake, there would be no coverage.

BO Throwing In Towel on Assault Weapons Ban?

First 100 days: Assault weapons ban - The First 100 Days- msnbc.com

Were that it were true. My bet is that once they get their 60 in the Senate they will try at least SOMETHING.

The Truth

100 days in office, Obama coronated Messiah

Imagine if they were "having fun" with the image of Mohamed! I love the title of the image; "The Truth". Reference to "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"?

As I saw this, I was thinking of the BO symbol

I was wondering who the last leader was to have a symbol of their own?

Buy an Assault Weapon!

Op-Ed Contributor - What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons? - NYTimes.com

If Jimmy Carter is against it, then I'm for it, and it must be important for America -- I'm not going to be a slave to that rule like the Statist's were against W, but it isn't a bad starting position. The best use of his writing is to see how a Statist argues:

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

This is a CLASSIC Statist argument. The ONLY people who would want an Assault Weapon are people that:
1). want to kill policemen
2). what to go to a school or workplace and stack up victims / commit suicide

A conservative person looking at a point wants to understand BOTH sides. So here is the other side. No real need to run off there. EVERY major hunting gun is rooted in a military gun -- it is simply much easier to take whatever the current military platform is and adapt it to civilian hunting use. NONE of the guns banned by the "assault weapons ban" are in fact "assault weapons", because none of them have the selector switch to shoot full auto. That was made illegal in the '30s. If Carter is referring to anything at all, he is referring to a STYLE of gun -- black, collapsible stock, shrouded barrel and large magazines. They are often referred to as "black guns" -- unsurprisingly, because they are almost always painted black.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.

Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.

The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.

Let's similarly look at these "arguments"; Those numbers of deaths. How many of those were due to assault weapons? Apparently Jimmuh wants us to believe a large number, but we all know that is not true -- as does Jimmuh! See above, the ONLY people that buy Assault Weapons are those that want to kill cops or mass murder. His stats are of course COMPLETELY idiotic, because they INCLUDED murder and suicide, which are ALREADY ILLEGAL. Assault Weapons are used in < 1% of all crime. Crime went DOWN when the Assault Weapon ban went off. Banning Assault Weapons is has no purpose relative to crime or consumer safety.

I've covered the "Mexican Issue" elsewhere -- classic Statist argument to claim "ONLY" some group supports it. So what? That has no effect on truth or falsehood. Truth isn't determined by poll numbers. If Jimmuh thinks it is, then he ought to clearly be very quiet since Reagan completely trashed him in '80, so the definition of "truth" is "poll says", then Jimmuh is a loser. The guns used in Mexico drug wars are FULL AUTO -- those are ALREADY ILLEGAL HERE !!!! Everyone is entitled to their opionion, but not to their own facts.

WOW, a class of firearm DESIGNED to only kill ONLY policemen and civilians??? But wait! Why would cops carry them??? Do they want to just kill each other and civilians??? Like what happens? You point the Assault Weapon at a "criminal" and the bullets go seek out cops or innocent bystranders??? I've shot a few thousand rounds at paper targets with my Assault Weapon, and so far no bystanders or police killed -- does that mean that all the folks at the gun range when I was shooting were criminals, and thus saved??? I mean Jimmuh is a Nobel Prize winner -- just like Al Gore and Yassir Arafat, so he MUST know what he was talking about.