Is conservatism over? Well, of course it is!

Climb
Conservatives must have the courage to defend their convictions.

from The National Review
By Mark Steyn

Is conservatism over?

Well, of course it is. Everyone from James Carville to Colin Powell says so. “The Republican party is in deep trouble,” General Powell told some group willing to pay him serious money to deliver this kind of incisive insight. “Americans do want to pay taxes for services. Americans want more government in their lives, not less.”

Whether or not they want it, they’re certainly going to get it. And if you like big government now, just think how big it’ll be once both parties are fully signed up to the concept. You’ll recall that General Powell voted for Barack Obama, coming out and publicly stiffing his “beloved friend” John McCain, after years of more discreetly stiffing (in leaks to Bob Woodward and others) his not-so-beloved colleagues in the Bush administration. But, in fairness to the former secretary of state, his breezy endorsement of more government and more taxes is as near as we’ve ever got to a coherent political philosophy from him. If the GOP refuses to take his advice, I would urge him to run a third-party campaign on this refreshingly candid platform.

One of Powell’s more famous utterances was his rationale, after the 1991 Gulf War, for declining to involve the U.S. military in the Balkans: “We do deserts, we don’t do mountains.” Actually, by that stage, the U.S. barely did deserts. The first President Bush’s decision, at Powell’s urging, not to topple Saddam but to halt the coalition forces at the gates of Baghdad sent the world a message about American purpose whose consequences we live with to this day. As for the Kurds and Shiites to whom it never occurred that the world’s superpower would assemble a mighty coalition for the purpose of fighting half a war to an inconclusive conclusion, Saddam quickly took a bloody revenge: That’s an interesting glimpse of what it’s like to be on the receiving end of Colin Powell’s much-vaunted “moderation.”

So I have no great regard for Powell’s strategic thinking, at home or abroad. As the general sees it, the Republican party ought to be a “big tent”: Right now, the tent is empty, with only a few “mean spirited” and “divisive” talk-radio hosts chewing the limbs off live kittens while gibbering to themselves. By comparison, over in the Democrat tent, they’ve got blacks, gays, unions, professors, Ben Affleck: diversity on parade.

In fact, the GOP’s tent has many poles: It has social conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, national-security hawks. These groups do not always agree: The so-cons resent the libertarians’ insouciance on gay marriage and abortion. The libertarians don’t get the warhawks’ obsession with thankless nation-building in Islamist hellholes. A lot of the hawks can’t see why the fiscal cons are so hung up on footling matters like bloated government spending at a time of war. It requires a lot of effort to align these various poles sufficiently to hold up the big tent. And by the 2006 electoral cycle, between the money-no-object Congress at home and a war that seemed to have dwindled down to an endless, half-hearted, semi-colonial policing operation, the GOP poles were tilting badly. The Republican coalition is like a permanent loveless marriage: There are bad times and worse times. And, while social conservatism and libertarianism can be principled to a fault, the vagaries of electoral politics mean they often wind up being represented in office by either unprincipled opportunists like Arlen Specter or unprincipled squishes like Lincoln Chafee.

Meanwhile, over in the other tent, they celebrate diversity with ruthless singlemindedness: In the Democrats’ parade, whatever your bugbear, government is the answer. Government is the means, government is the end, government is the whole magilla. That gives them a unity of purpose the GOP can never match.

And yet and yet . . . Last November, even with the GOP’s fiscal profligacy, even with the financial sector’s “October surprise,” even with a cranky old coot of a nominee unable to articulate any rationale for his candidacy or even string together a coherent thought on the economy, even with a running mate subjected to brutal character assassination in nothing flat, even running against a charming, charismatic media darling of historic significance, even facing the natural cycle of a two-party system, the washed-up loser no-hoper side managed to get 46 percent of the vote.

Okay, it’s not 51 percent. But still: Obama’s 53 percent isn’t a big transformative landslide just because he behaves as if it were.

To put it in Powellite terms, the general thinks the Republican party is in the desert, when in fact it’s climbing a mountain. All things considered, the resilience of American conservatism is one of the most remarkable features of contemporary Western politics. It’s up against significant members of its own party. It’s up against media for whom the Democrats’ positions are the default positions on almost anything that matters.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Rise Before Me You Submissive Infidels!

WH Reporters Stand For Obama, But Not For Bush?
by Patrick W. Gavin
May 2nd, 2009

Consider these two different reactions from the White House press corps during presidential drop-ins at the White House’s James S. Brady Briefing Room:



UPDATE: A commenter points out that, on occasion, White House reporters did stand for Bush (example here), raising an interesting question: Why the inconsistency in protocol?
Click to go to the article and read the comments

Behold a New 'Fairness' Doctrine'

FCC Announces May 7 'Diversity Committee' Meeting - Behold a New 'Fairness' Doctrine
from NewsBusters.com
By Seton Motley

Behold one of the new "Fairness" Doctrines - "media diversity" - coming soon to a radio station near you.

President Barack Obama's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has released the names of the thirty-one members of their Advisory Committee On Diversity For Communications In The Digital Age. This May 7 gathering is made up of a laundry list of left-wing grievance groups, with a smattering of radio and television companies included to break up the monotony.

Not a single conservative organization is taking part in this Commission - more than a dozen Leftist groups are. A little ironic for a "diversity" panel, is it not?

Chairing the meeting is Henry Rivera, a former FCC Commissioner who was (and presumably still is) a strong proponent of the Censorship Doctrine, also mis-known as the "Fairness" Doctrine.

Many, many liberals in Washington have over the last several years called for a reinstatement of the Doctrine. But push-back from people who have read and actually understand the First Amendment led the Left to realize that the political price to bring it back was too high, so they MovedOn.org.

Of course, their desire to silence the lone voices of their opposition had not lessened in the slightest. They're still just as dictatorial, just pragmatically so.

On February 26, Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin - one of the myriad past "Fairness" Doctrine champions - sponsored an amendment, passed via a 57-41 Party-line vote, which forces the FCC to "take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest."

About which Durbin said at the time: ""No one is suggesting that the law for the FCC says that you can give this license to a Republican and this one to a Democrat and this one to a liberal and this one to a conservative. When we talk about diversity in media ownership, it relates primarily to gender, race and other characteristics of that nature."

As to his first statement, we have our doubts (see below).

And with the second, Color-Blind-America notion in mind, here is just a fractional listing of the organizational attendees of next week's gathering:

Emma Bowen Foundation for Minority Interests in Media (Rivera's outfit)
Minority Media and Telecommunications Council
Black Entertainment Television Holdings, Inc.
Afro-American Newspapers
Inner City Broadcasting
National Urban League
National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters (yes, again, NABOB)
Spanish Broadcasting System
American Women in Radio and Television
Chickasaw Nation Industries, Inc.
Asian American Justice Center

Rivera got the gig heading up this racial grumble group because he has long championed the concept of "media diversity."

The proponents of station owner affirmative action are the same Leftists who were so ardently in favor of reinstating the Doctrine. One can thusly be forgiven for seeing this as an alternative route for the Left to reach their long-sought original destination - the silencing of conservative and Christian talk radio via governmental regulatory fiat.

And it's not just our imagination - it's also our lying eyes. The Center for American Progress is a left-wing hack outfit headed by former Clinton Administration and Obama Transition Team adviser John Podesta. And they released on January 22, 2007 a report entitled "Local Media Diversity Matters - Measure Media Diversity According to Democratic Values, Not Market Values."

The name of the report is right up this Committee's alley and instantaneously gives any sensible person the Willies. So anti-free market a title is but a prelude - the recommendations are a series of assaults on the broadcast industry so as to effect their desired ideological outcome - less conservatives on the air.

Many on the Left see the media pantheon as fraught with racism and sexism. And of course the airwaves are dominated by ideological monopol-ism. There are too many white men owning too many radio and television stations that broadcast too many conservatives to suit liberal tastes.

They truly believe the former is the only possible explanation for the latter. The existence of Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley, Tammy Bruce and other un-white males in the talk radio universe fails to persuade them. Neither does the ratings argument - thems that get the ratings get the airwaves. Conservatives have listeners; liberals do not.

According to the Left, these white male station owners don't put conservatives on the air because they make them money, they put them on the air because they are conservatives. The anti-free speech/anti-free marketeers remain as always steadfastly impervious to facts.

Again, the CAP report's subtitle is "Measure Media Diversity According to Democratic Values, Not Market Values." Why would the Left care about the bottom line of a bunch of white male station owners? There's a media world to be re-made, and these liberals don't care how many billions it it costs these racist-sexist bigots to make it happen. Besides, they deserve to get the shaft; it's only fair.

The broadcast license is of course a station's lifeblood; take it away, or make it impossible to meet the regulatory obligations to keep it, and they are literally out of business. The Left, no longer comfortable with trying the top-down, all-out assault that is the "Fairness" Doctrine, intends instead to silence conservative and Christian talk via this broadcast license manipulation.

If they can succeed in making it impossible for talk radio to operate as a business, talk radio will cease to operate. Leftist problem solved.

"Media diversity" is just the latest Leftist attempt to get this done.

—Seton Motley is Director of Communications for the Media Research Center.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Jon Stewart, War Criminals & The True Story of the Atomic Bombs

I've read a lot of World War II books, some of which were very specific about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs, but this was the most condensed, informative collection of information regarding the Atomic Bomb issue that I've experienced.

Not only does this break down and discount everything that John Stewart said, it goes way beyond that and educates you about the ferocity with which the Japanese people were willing to defend their homeland from attack.

Personally, I think it would be difficult to watch this video and not come away with the sense that not only was it the right decision, but it was a morally correct decision to make.

Individuals like Jon Stewart will never let facts get in the way of how they choose to believe. The value of this video is that it presents a factual representation of what actually happened and it's available for those who choose to become educated about that portion of World War II. The key to me is that people like Jon Stewart do not go unchallenged when they spew distorted venom like this. This video provides the "rest of the story" as Paul Harvey would say.

Its hard to comprehend what state the world would currently be in if Jon Stewart and his ilk had been the world leaders in the World War I and II time frame. Would they have ultimately had the moral courage to fight back against Germany and Japan, or would they have just ordered the military to lay down its arms and surrender? Maybe that's a question that Jon Stewart should answer if he will just take one minute of his valuable time and step down off of his moral high horse.

As far as I'm concerned, these people are nothing more than despicable Monday morning quarterbacks when it comes to world history.
Rees

Here is the incredible video from Pajamas TV. You can select the video quality on the left side of the player.

http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_/Jon_Stewart%2C_War_Criminals_%26_The_True_Story_of_the_Atomic_Bombs/1808/

Getting Real About Torture - You Want The Truth? You Can't Handle The Truth!

Tom: Did you order the code red?

Judge: You don't have to answer that question.

Jack: I'll answer the question. You want answers?

Tom: I think I'm entitled.

Jack: YOU WANT ANSWERS?

Tom: I WANT THE TRUTH!

Jack: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Jack: Son we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You Lieutenant Weinberg?

I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existance while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about it at parties. You want me on that wall! You need me on that wall!

We use words like Honor, Code, Loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way, otherwise, I suggest you pickup a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN! what you think you are entitled to.

Tom: Did you order the code red?

Jack: I did the job.

Tom: DID YOU ORDER THE CODE?

Jack: YOU'RE G*D D*MN RIGHT I DID!

--------------------------------------------

GETTING REAL ABOUT TORTURE

by Mark Tapson
May 2, 2009

Since our country’s having a heated conversation about torture, and especially since that conversation seems certain to devolve into a parade of politicized, self-flagellating show trials that will broadcast our divided weakness to the world, it’s time to get some perspective on what torture is and isn’t, and who does it and who doesn’t.

Let me state for the record that I firmly believe America should not torture. But I’m at ease about that, because America does not torture. Do we use harsh interrogation techniques? Of course we do, and why not? This is war - why should we treat captive enemy combatants to a rejuvenating stay at the Four Seasons? Some of these maniacs plotted the devastation of 9/11, all cheered it, and if given the chance, all would gleefully saw your head off and then post a video of it on the Internet as inspiration for others of their fanatical ilk. Many of them might have information that could prevent further mayhem here and abroad - information they’re not going to volunteer simply because we’re congenial hosts.

But liberals presumably would prefer that we sit down with the captives (after bowing to them, of course), and engage in mutually respectful “dialogue” - the left’s favorite and only way of confronting evil - which will yield no life-saving information, but which will enable them to air their grievances. After we promise to make things right, we can let them return to the battlefield and take up arms against us again. This makes for a pathetic, brainless wartime strategy, but hey, national self-preservation and victory against violent jihad are far less important to liberals than providing our guests with civil rights that the Islamists themselves want to deprive us of.

Many liberals and conservatives say we should handle enemy combatants (I keep forgetting we’re not allowed to call them that anymore) with kid gloves because to do otherwise incites the enemy to take punitive measures against their prisoners of ours. This is perhaps the lamest argument against harsh interrogation. First of all, the Islamists need absolutely no incentive from us to mutilate and murder infidels, Jews, and Muslims who don’t fall in line. Second, they do not operate according to such rules of fair play, so we are not rewarded for our good will. Third, jihadist captives are trained to lie anyway about the brutality of their “mistreatment” at our hands, so what we do is irrelevant. And those who insist that America is obligated to hold herself to a higher standard than our enemy are willfully ignoring the fact that we already hold ourselves to the highest possible standard - and unlike our enemy, we punish any interrogators and guards who cross the line.

The problem is that the left thinks everything crosses the line, that causing enemy combatants any degree of discomfort constitutes sadism. Because the left in America has commandeered the topic of torture, such basic interrogation techniques as sleep deprivation and waterboarding have been held up as reprehensible and horrific examples of it. Is waterboarding extraordinarily uncomfortable, even panic-inducing? You bet your ass it is, and that’s the point. Is it torture? Not surprisingly, former community organizer Barack Obama has announced that it is, and as with all his opinions about confronting radical Islam, he is wrong.

Do you want to know what torture really is? Have you ever seen a beheading video, or footage of a stoning? Because that’s torture, and nothing America does is even remotely in the same category. Below are four marginally more palatable examples that you won’t hear about in the current liberal-driven debate because they were committed by jihadists, and liberals and their media collaborators don’t want to cloud the whole torture issue by allowing the ghastly facts about our enemy to be introduced. I tried to refrain from explicit detail:

1) The drug-stoked jihadists who devastated Mumbai last Thanksgiving weekend and left nearly 200 infidels dead in their wake took time out from their rampage to sexually torture a rabbi and his pregnant wife (who, as it was later revealed, were their primary targets) before executing them. The doctors who examined the corpses were so horrified they didn’t want to discuss it.

2) This week the leader of a jihadist gang went on trial in Paris. The gang had kidnapped a Parisian Jew in 2006 and tortured him over a period of 24 days - 24 days - during which over 80% of his body was “butchered,” according to police. He was dumped near a train station, bound and unable to speak, and died on the way to the hospital. The gang leader proudly shouted “Allahu Akhbar!” in the courtroom and taunted the victim’s family.

3) In June of that same year, two young American Privates, Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca, were captured and tortured to death by Iraqi insurgents. Their bodies were later dumped and booby-trapped (because of course it’s not enough for the Islamist cowards to butcher helpless captives - they also have to wire the corpses with explosives to cause even more mayhem). The mainstream media reported only that the two had been killed in a “barbaric” way; I won’t even begin to relate here the truth of how horrifically they were mutilated, but if you want a gut-wrenching appreciation not only for what torture really means, but also for the depths of our enemy’s sadism, you can read the details here.

4) A former torturer for the Taliban describes here how inventive he used to be in terms of enforcing the most fundamentalist strain of Islam on the planet. His methods against insufficiently pious Muslims included crucifixion and rubbing salt in the wounds of victims who were so badly beaten and bloodied that it was impossible to tell whether they were wearing clothes.

(If these contemporary examples aren’t enough to convince blustery, high-minded liberals that true torture is unimaginably worse than our own interrogation techniques, then they could enlighten themselves with such eye-opening historical examples as: Armando Valladares’ memoir of 22 years in Castro’s prisons, Against All Hope; Haing Ngor’s Survival in the Killing Fields of Cambodia under the monstrous Khmer Rouge; and Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s epic of Communist brutality, The Gulag Archipelago.)

None of the victims in the above list was suspected of war crimes and “harshly interrogated” for information that might prevent another 9/11; on the contrary, all were targeted, cruelly brutalized, and killed by evil men for no other reason than that they were Jews or Americans or supposed “apostates.”

Let’s get real. As much as it pleases the New York Times and leftists here to brand America as “Torture Nation,” we must recognize that there is a vast gulf between the ways we and the enemy treat prisoners. It is the Islamists who torture, not us. Roughing up suspects who have been trained to resist our medically-supervised interrogation techniques, and who are among the most hateful bastards on the planet, in order to extract information that may prevent more terrorist horrors, is not the same as torture. Anyone who says that we’re the bad guys, brutalizing helpless innocents who just happened to be caught in the net of Bush’s chimerical war on terror, is completely divorced from reality.

Speaking of divorced from reality, the Obama administration is determined to pretend that we’re not at war with radical Islam; it recklessly intends to release Guantanamo suspects on our own soil; it is suicidally exposing America’s intelligence secrets to the world; and it is vindictively seeking to retroactively punish the previous administration for its anti-terrorism efforts.

The enemy, meanwhile, is laughing at all our moral and legalistic hand-wringing, and at our paralyzing internecine debate about interrogation. They consider it contemptible weakness - which indeed it is. It’s no wonder that insanely apocalyptic Iranian President Ahmadinejad recently declared to America, “We say to you that you yourselves know that you are today in a position of weakness. Your hands are empty, and you can no longer promote your affairs from a position of strength.”

For once, Ahmadinejad is right. Instead of bending over backwards to treat these scourges of civilization better than we treat our own prison population, we need to grow a pair and start presenting an uncompromising and unapologetic strength. The first step is to seize back control of the discussion about torture in this country from those who have no grasp of the reality of torture, who blindly serve the propaganda purposes of our enemy, and who froth at the mouth all day long about the satanic Bush cabal but never have a critical word to say about real evil. It’s time America shows the world that we recognize we already have the moral high ground, that we derive strength and national unity from that certainty, and that from now on the spotlight on torture will be trained on those who are truly guilty of it.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

Jon Stewart calls Truman a war criminal then offers up BS apology

Listen not only to his words, but his tone and how he is basically joking around all the time he is spewing his so-called apology. The only way this can be considered an apology is because he actually said the word "apology.''

In addition, you can't be anymore intellectually dishonest than when he said, "I may have mentioned during the discussion we were having that Harry Truman was a war criminal." There was no 'may,' he said it. Just listen to the tape. Who are you going to believe, his apology or your lying eyes and ears when you watch the video?

Personally, I think he meant it when he said Truman was a war criminal. I believe that the only reason he came forth with an apology was due to the outrage by viewers and some in the mainstream media.
Rees

Here's part of what he said:

"The other night we had on Cliff May. He was on, we were discussing torture, back and forth, very spirited discussion, very enjoyable. And I may have mentioned during the discussion we were having that Harry Truman was a war criminal. And right after saying it, I thought to myself that was dumb. And it was dumb. Stupid in fact."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Harry Truman Was Not a War Criminal
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

Obama’s Liberal Arrogance Will Be His Undoing

"nothing in politics breeds corrective antibodies more quickly than overreaching arrogance" - Jonah Goldberg

American politics didn’t come to an end with Obama’s election.
from The National Review
By Jonah Goldberg
April 29, 2009

The most remarkable, or certainly the least remarked on, aspect of Barack Obama’s first 100 days has been the infectious arrogance of his presidency.

There’s no denying that this is liberalism’s greatest opportunity for wish fulfillment since at least 1964. But to listen to Democrats, the only check on their ambition is the limit of their imaginations.

“The world has changed,” Sen. Charles Schumer of New York proclaimed on MSNBC. “The old Reagan philosophy that served them well politically from 1980 to about 2004 and 2006 is over. But the hard right, which still believes . . . [in] traditional-values kind of arguments and strong foreign policy, all that is over.”

Right. “Family values” and “strong foreign policy” belong next to the “free silver” movement in the lexicon of dead political causes.

No doubt Schumer was employing the kind of simplified shorthand one uses when everyone in the room already agrees with you. He can be forgiven for mistaking an MSNBC studio for such a milieu, but it seemed not to dawn on him that anybody watching might see it differently.

When George W. Bush was in office, we heard constantly about the poisonous nature of American polarization. For example, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg came out with a book arguing that “our nation’s political landscape is now divided more deeply and more evenly than perhaps ever before.” One can charitably say this was abject nonsense. Evenly divided? Maybe. But more deeply? Feh.

During the Civil War, the political landscape was so deeply divided that 600,000 Americans died. During the 1930s, labor strife and revolutionary ardor threatened the stability of the republic. In the 1960s, political assassinations, riots, and bombings punctuated our political discourse.

It says something about the relationship of liberals to political power that they can overlook domestic dissent when they’re at the wheel. When the GOP is in office, America is seen as hopelessly divided because dissent is the highest form of patriotism. When Democrats are in charge, the Frank Riches suddenly declare the culture war over and dismiss dissent as the scary work of the sort of cranks Obama’s Department of Homeland Security needs to monitor.

If liberals thought so fondly of social peace and consensus, they would look more favorably on the 1920s and 1950s. Instead, their political idylls are the tumultuous ’30s and ’60s, when liberalism, if not necessarily liberals, rode high in the saddle.

Sure, America was divided under Bush. And it’s still divided under Obama (just look at the recent Minnesota Senate race and the New York congressional special election). According to the polls, America is a bit less divided under Obama than it was at the end of Bush’s first 100 days. But not as much less as you would expect, given Obama’s victory margin and the rally-around-the-president effect of the financial crisis (not to mention the disarray of the GOP).

Meanwhile, circulation for the conservative National Review (where I work) is soaring. More people watch Fox News (where I am a contributor) in primetime than watch CNN and MSNBC combined. The “tea parties” may not have been as big as your typical union-organized “spontaneous” demonstration, but they were far more significant than any protests this early in Bush’s tenure.

And yet, according to Democrats and liberal pundits, America is enjoying unprecedented unity, and conservatives are going the way of the dodo.

Obama has surely helped set the tone for the unfolding riot of liberal hubris. In his effort to reprise the sort of expansion of liberal power we saw in the ’30s and ’60s, Obama has — without a whiff of self-doubt — committed America to $6.5 trillion in extra debt, $65 billion for each of his first 100 days, and that’s based on an impossibly rosy forecast of the economy. No wonder congressional Democrats clamor to take over corporations, tax the air we breathe, and set wages for everybody.

On social issues such as abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, Obama has proved to be, if anything, more of a left-wing culture warrior than Bush was a right-wing one. All the while, Obama transmogrifies his principled opponents into straw-man ideologues while preening about his own humble pragmatism. For him, bipartisanship is defined as shutting up and getting in line.

I’m not arguing that conservatives are poised to make some miraculous comeback. They’re not. But American politics didn’t come to an end with Obama’s election, and nothing in politics breeds corrective antibodies more quickly than overreaching arrogance. And by that measure, Obama’s first 100 days have been a huge down payment on the inevitable correction to come.

— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. © 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Click to read the rest of the article and the comments

MUST WATCH!!! "This is a Political Witchhunt!"

This is a MUST WATCH video! This is the best one he's ever done!
Rees



by Drinking With Bob
What's next? I'll tell you what's next...

Barack Obama is going to get us all killed! I don't care if you're are liberal, conservative, republican or a democrat. Barack Obama is going to get us all killed! And purely for political reasons. Purely to make george Bush look like a bad guy.

The other day Barack Obama released secret CIA documents showing that the Bush administration used enhanced interrogation techniques, ie waterboarding, to get information out of terrorists. When Dick Cheney heard about this he said fine, but if you want to release those documents showing the Bush administration used waterboarding. At least release the documents showing what information was attained form these tactics.

Release the documents that show how the United States foiled a plot to blow up a building in Los Angeles, saving thousands of American lives by using waterboarding. Show that we foiled a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, saving thousands more American lives by using waterboarding.

Barack Obama doesn't want to release THOSE documents though. Why? Because this is a political witch hunt. Barack Obamas sole agenda in the White House is to legitimize countries like Cuba, Iran and Venezuela and de-legitimize this country. His sole agenda is to prop-up dictators like Castro, Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez and knock down former President George Bush. He wants to excuse the atrocities committed by these dictators. The cutting off of hands and feet. The cutting off of heads. The killing of people who did not agree with them politically. And he wants to hold George Bush accountable for dunking peoples heads underneath the water for a couple of seconds. Are you freaking kidding me?!!

What does Barack Obama and these freaking liberals intend to do in interrogations? How do they plan to get information out of terrorists? I'll tell you what they plan to do... They plan to put the terrorists in "time-out" chairs until they give us information on what Americans they're going to kill next. They plan to send the terrorists to bed without any supper until they give us information on what Americans they are planning to kill next. Are you freaking kidding me?! Are you freaking kidding me?!!

When are you people going to get it? When are you going to WAKE UP? You have Mary freaking Poppins in charge of the White House and it is going to take more than a spoonful of freaking sugar to help intelligent Americans swallow the CRAP that they are trying to feed us!

Waterboarding saves lives people!! waterboarding saves lives!!!

What's next! What's next!! What's next!!!

Don't Be So Sensitive, Mr. President

photo of Roxana Saberi who continues to be held captive in Iran

Truth comes before reconciliation.

By Christopher Hitchens
Monday, April 13, 2009
from Slate.com

President Barack Obama's visit to Europe afforded us an opportunity to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of his style in operation. And, even though he has almost attained the Holy Grail of public relations—in other words, he is practically at that ineffable and serene point where he gets good press for getting good press—there may come a time when even his trans-Atlantic admirers will have to take a second look.

His speech in Strasbourg, France, was much too long, given the youth of the audience and the way in which presidential sonorousness ate into the time that was to be allowed for questions, but its aim of changing the American tone was largely successful. I thought that the best moment was when he focused on the German and French citizens who had perished in the World Trade Center. George W. Bush always spoke as if the atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001, were an attack on the United States only and drew the corollary in his rhetoric that you are either "with" the United States or with the "terrists" (as he always seemed to think they were called). By underlining the losses suffered by other countries, not only did Obama redress this imbalance, he also gently but firmly reminded Europeans that this was and is their struggle, too.
Related in Slate

One would have liked a bit more of this combination and perhaps very slightly less willingness to make disclaimers about American power. It's absurd to act as if, at NATO and G20 meetings, the United States is just another modest member. In the case of NATO, it is at least "first among equals," or primus inter pares, in that its military strength is greater than that of all the other members of the alliance combined. In the case of the world's economic powers, a disproportionate share of the blame for the current crisis lies with America and so does a comparably vast element of the chance that the decline can be reversed. It is obviously not a moment to strut around impersonating a hyperpower, but that doesn't mean that Madeleine Albright's injunction about the United States being a "necessary" power can be disowned, either.

The limitations of the Obama manner were exposed in his address to the Turkish parliament and his press conference with the Turkish leadership. The president did not take the opportunity to reiterate his principled stand on the Armenian genocide that we are commemorating this month and took refuge in platitudes about healing and negotiation. It's not as if the Turks don't know what he thinks, so it's difficult to see the value of undue reticence. And it's hardly an accident that, in all successful attempts at settling accounts with the past in other nations, the word reconciliation has invariably been preceded by the word truth. The first duty is to stop lying. Only then can any genuine attempt at settlement get under way.

It was also somewhat naive of Obama to deny that the United States is "or ever will be" at war with Islam. Of course, one cannot exactly make war on a faith, most especially a faith that is currently undergoing a civil war within itself, in which Turkey has several times been attacked by Bin Ladenist forces. But twice in the past, jihad has been officially proclaimed from Turkey's capital. It was in the name of the Quran that the piratical Ottoman provinces known as the Barbary States took hundreds of thousands of American and European voyagers into slavery in the 18th century, until Thomas Jefferson dispatched the fleet and the Marines to put down the trade, and it was from Constantinople that the Ottoman military alliance with German imperialism in 1914 was proclaimed as a holy war binding on all good Muslims. In other words, what one really wants is an assurance that Islam is not, nor ever will be, at war (again) with the United States.

That Obama is confused about this, and also slightly weak, is demonstrated by his earlier attempt at quiet diplomacy, or constructive engagement, or whatever we agree to call it, with Iran. He sent a message to "the people and leaders of Iran" on the occasion of Nowruz, or New Year—a day that he may or may not have known is slightly frowned upon by the Islamic authorities, because it involves fire ceremonies and other celebrations that predate the Muslim conquest of Persia. Any offense they might have taken on that score must have been mollified when the president twice referred to the country as "the Islamic Republic of Iran," as in, "The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations."

Does this boilerplate goodwill represent anything true? In order for the great and civilized nation of Persia to take its rightful place in the community of nations, it would have to be able to demonstrate that its leadership was freely chosen by its own people and that it was willing to abide by agreements and undertakings (on nontrifling matters such as nuclear proliferation) that it had solemnly signed. The mullahs rule Iran on the basis of a Khomeini-ite dogma known as the veliyate faqui, which makes them the owners and "guardians" of all the country's citizens. And they have been covertly seeking enriched uranium of the sort not required for a civilian nuclear program, while never ceasing to proclaim the imminent and apocalyptic return of the 12th or "hidden" imam. In other words, in order to claim its "rightful place" in any recognizable community of nations, Iran would in effect have to cease to be an Islamic republic.

Meanwhile, the theocratic regime has several times exerted its power to arrest and imprison Iranian-Americans for "offenses" that would not be crimes in any civilized country. The most recent such outrage is the imprisonment of journalist Roxana Saberi, framed for allegedly buying a bottle of wine. We should hear more from the White House about her case and less about the sensitivities of her jailers. Some differences cannot be split. Many conflicts are real and do not arise from mere cultural misunderstandings. Obama must learn this or be taught it, whichever comes sooner.
Click to read the article

Putin to Obama: Look into my Eyes...