Boobery In Bloom

New England is awash in tourists during the autumn, at the peak of the fall foliage season. This first week of December 2009 is peak viewing season for Obama Boobery. Last night Americans witnessed golden, glorious examples of Boobery delivered, and Boobery yet to come.

And let’s not overlook the full spectrum of colorful lies, dripping like falling leaves, from Obama’s mouth.

* * * * *

Last night Obama said Afghanistan was so important, so very important, so very very important, and so very essential to American national security that he was going to do a Bush W. “surge” and then almost immediately bring the troops home. It was an “escalate to retreat” kazoo call. In the language of clichés: Escalate the buildup to get on the exit ramp.

During the Obama boobfest last night, Obama stated the troops would start coming home by Summer 2011, having arrived by May 2010. Before the Obama publicity stunt however, White House officials held many conference calls with Obama Big Blog Boy lackeys. They were told the opposite.

At the Hillary Hate sewer we term “Nothing Left” an Obama lackey was stupefied:

I just had a chance to talk with three senior Obama administration officials. [snip]

The answers made it clear that there is no actual timeline for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan:

* There is no defined rate for, or number of troops involved in, the 2011 withdrawal.

* They will be “taking conditions on the ground into account” in determining the withdrawal.

* The withdrawal is “a goal.”


Push-Me-Pull-You

So which is it? Who knows? Boobery is in full bloom.

* * * * *

Hillary Clinton was presidential today and made clear that there is in fact no withdrawal time line as far as she is concerned: “I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving” Afghanistan Hillary testified today. But Hillary Clinton is not in charge and she and we know:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

The New York Post noted, on its front page that Obama omitted one word in yesterday’s publicity stunt: “win”.

The Associated Press took note of other problems with the speech:

Obama’s speech Tuesday night did not always match the reality on the ground in Afghanistan. [snip]

A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: “Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead.”

THE FACTS: When Obama says he is confident that allied countries will provide more troops in the weeks ahead he is setting aside years of mostly empty-handed American efforts to get others, including allies in NATO, to deepen their commitment to combat in Afghanistan. [snip]

OBAMA: The extra U.S. forces for Afghanistan “will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans. ”

THE FACTS: The problem with Afghan forces is not just their lack of numbers. And it’s not an unwillingness to fight. The problem too often is their effectiveness, once trained for combat. Too many get into the fight but don’t remain or don’t perform.

Vietnamization did not work out so well for Richard Nixon. But Vietnam and its lessons are so “Boomer” to Obama. Perhaps that is why Obama did not bother to discuss the questions raised by his escalate-to-exit boobery. Americans are willing to be convinced but the issue needs to be addressed. Obama does not address the issue, just drips lies from his lips. Is there a chance that Afghan forces will perform as well as, what appears at first blush to be working in Iraq? Obama did not explain, he just lied.

OBAMA: “In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.”

THE FACTS: It’s true the Pakistani army this year has launched offensives against extremist elements in the areas cited by Obama. What he did not mention, however, is that the groups being targeted by the Pakistanis are those that threaten the Pakistani government — not those, also based in Pakistan, that are focused on attacking U.S. and Afghan forces on the other side of the porous border with Afghanistan.

Big Pink readers are now put on alert. Pakistan is the last refuge of Obama supporters. So bad was Obama’s speech, so confused was Obama’s speech, so laden with lies was Obama’s speech that Obama supporters are creating a new speech in their minds. In their minds Obama supporters are quickly creating the myth that the speech last night was really another complex Obama brilliant strategy on Pakistan. Afghanistan, to these Obama enablers, was merely a pretext. The Obama speech is a brilliant way to tackle and fight in Pakistan. We’ll write more about this in the future but for now we say one word: Cambodia.

Other Obama enablers, legs tingling, saw opposition to Obama as the enemy at work. West Point, with its young cadets training in defense of country, to Obama enablers is an “enemy camp”:

“It seems like in this case, there isn’t a lot of excitement. I watched the cadets, they were young kids – men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally it must be said, as officers. And, I didn’t see much excitement. But among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn’t see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there. The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that’s where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That’s where he went to rabble rouse the “we’re going to democratize the world” campaign back in ‘02. So, I thought it was a strange venue.

Obama supporters at MSNBC are heard to chant agreement as Chris Matthews slobbered love on Obama [warning: Chris Matthews video below]



Other Big Media outlets from overseas saw what we saw:

Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught. [snip]

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.

One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan — and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war — and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.[snip]

It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the “world’s great religions.” He promised that responsibility for the country’s security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai — a government which he said was “corrupt.” The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But “America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars,” he added.

It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.

Other Big Media outlets agree with us as to the boobfest which was last night’s speech:

Since his inauguration, Barack Obama has tripled the number of troops fighting in Afghanistan. [snip]

The rest, though, is a bit blurry. According to his speech, Obama is escalating while retreating, adding more troops while also setting a date for their departure. Obama said he was putting pressure on the Afghan government, but he didn’t suggest how. [snip]

Obama insisted that his deadline-that-isn’t-a-deadline would put pressure on the Afghan government. “The absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.”

But Obama said nothing in the speech that put actual pressure on the government. The surge can succeed militarily but won’t be worth anything if Hamid Karzai doesn’t change his behavior and the Afghan army doesn’t improve.

Obama knows the government in Kabul is corrupt or, more benignly, that Karzai’s goals don’t match America’s. President Obama wants to pressure Kabul but can’t be seen to be doing so too openly, or it will undermine Karzai with his own people. So President Obama announced no verifiable set of benchmarks or penalties for Afghanistan—the very requirements that Sen. Obama said were necessary for for Bush’s Iraq troop surge in 2007.

According to this analysis, Obama is waging war on our ally Karzai, not on the Taliban or those not to be mentioned terrorists. This analysis is in agreement with what many have observed: Obama attacks America’s friends and bows to America’s enemies:

The president’s strategy, according to administration officials, is to circumvent the Karzai government, inspiring regional agencies through financial incentives and basically avoiding the Kabul government altogether.[snip]

Obama’s escalation despite such a weak partner in Kabul marks the final stage of Obama’s evolution of opinion about the relationship between troop increases and the behavior of client states. In 2007, he faulted Bush’s surge in part because the escalation would weaken Iraq’s ability to take responsibility for its own future. The corruption and weakness of the Afghanistan government have only grown more apparent since Obama sent troops in March, and yet he is sending more.

Oboobery is in bloom. Weak, limp, pathetic:

Obama’s tone was methodical and emotionless. He often sounded like a reluctant warrior. He told the West Point students about signing condolence letters and greeting coffins arriving at Dover.

As the coffins continue to arrive, Obama enablers can marvel at their work.

Share

72 thoughts on “Boobery In Bloom

  1. Even I am surprised at the level of discontent being thrown at Obama from the Democrat quarters (well, i lie, i’m not really) but this could really be his undoing.

    The DUmmies are absolutely up in arms.

    When Obama loses the big blue Dem as they come Michael Moore then things are bad, has Susan Sarandon recovered from her coronary, have we heard from her code pink yet or are they still sitting stunned in front of the tv.

  2. The Dems, his supporters thought he was going to offer something new, brainy, novel, different and daring, even magical (like his no preconditions BS) to get us out of this quagmire. They even thought all his reaching out to the Muslim world will make a difference but we have not heard a peep from the Muslim countries and moderate Muslims — they are not going to criticize their own brothers run amuck. He is now offering the same old tired policies and arguments of Bush, weakened further by his spurned overtures.

  3. MoonOnPluto, Moore and Sarandon and the Big Blog Boys have responsibility for every coffin that arrives in the U.S. from Afghanistan.

    Hillary supporters must hold accountable those that enabled Obama. We supported Hillary, not because she was perfect, but because she had the qualifications and experience and scars to do what was best for the country. Obama enablers turned Obama into their mess-iah and now they want to continue to lead the nation. Those that enabled Obama must take responsibility for all his actions.

  4. Damn straight Admin. The Dem traitors now really know how WE felt at the betrayal of the Clintons, they are feeling the knife of Obama themselves now.

  5. Admin, who are we kidding? These are people without conscience. They will pretend they had no choice but to vote for him, when McCain was the other choice. About Hillary they won’t even acknowledge what we know about her. They will rationalize it making her incompetent to even run her campaign.

  6. Well if civil unrest runs this guy out of office, he can always beg for asylum in Pakistan…maybe even run for office there.

    It would be a “come-up” and not a come down in his moronic opinion.

  7. “About Hillary they won’t even acknowledge what we know about her. They will rationalize it making her incompetent to even run her campaign.”

    —————–

    As much as I have hoped otherwise, I have to say that I have been thinking the same thing.

    If bambi, meme, and the dims don’t scapegoat her, they will at the very least take her down with them.

  8. pm317
    December 2nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
    All this civil war thing is too far fetched. There is enough bad stuff without going hyper with those, IMHO. If we do, we are only empowering Obama and his supporters and even people in the middle to easily negate and dismiss our rational arguments.

    =========================

    Right, and this goes for other cranky tinfoil sounding theories too. Suppose one of them WAS true? What good would it do to blog about it here? Imo we need to balance the small chance it’s true and the small chance that (if true) blogging openly about it would help — against the large chance of losing our credibility on more believable issues.

  9. why turndown, you didn’t like my crazy uncle analogy? ;). or didn’t you agree with the two articles I linked? I am beginning to get tired of these third world bastards who don’t care about their own people and the people themselves have no self respect and no motivation to fight for their own welfare. And in comes America playing the world cop, but these bastards don’t even know how to help themselves.

  10. Admin, who are we kidding? These are people without conscience. They will pretend they had no choice but to vote for him, when McCain was the other choice. About Hillary they won’t even acknowledge what we know about her. They will rationalize it making her incompetent to even run her campaign.
    ————————————————-
    They have no frontal lobes in their brains. To argue with them is a lifetime exercise in futility. We would have a better chance trying to explain the theory of relativity to people in the psycho ward.

  11. MoonOnPluto, Moore and Sarandon and the Big Blog Boys have responsibility for every coffin that arrives in the U.S. from Afghanistan.

    Hillary supporters must hold accountable those that enabled Obama. We supported Hillary, not because she was perfect, but because she had the qualifications and experience and scars to do what was best for the country. Obama enablers turned Obama into their mess-iah and now they want to continue to lead the nation. Those that enabled Obama must take responsibility for all his actions.
    ———————————
    True.

  12. Barky has no more right to his spot in the White House than the Salahi’s do. He got there by cheating much more than they did and he is using his time there to enrich his friends and himself. No bankers have gone hungry on his watch. That’s for sure.
    The speech last night was a perfect example of his backing and filling, after protracted delays while our troops are getting shot at, to try to appease both sides and wind up satisfying no one.
    He has always been a showboat and never a leader. His pitiful record should make all those who supported him beg for forgiveness and swear to support Hillary next time.

  13. Saw this attributed to Maureen Dowd:
    [[ “Barack Obama is the ultimate party crasher. He crashed Hillary’s high-hat party in 2008 and he crashed the snooty age-old Washington party of privileged white guys with a monopoly on power.” ]]

  14. Oh wud some pow’r
    The giftie gee us
    To see ourselvs
    As ither see us
    ——————————–
    The Germans have a laser sharp insight into Obama. It beckons to our own big media: stop trying to defend an indefensible position, unless you wish to be thought of as a total idiot. This is what reporting should look like. The concluding line is wonderful: he does not need an opponent–he has got himself:
    ——————————————————————————
    (concerning the great speech from the plains as West Point, der spiegel says this).

    It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.

    Obama’s Magic No Longer Works

    But in this case, the public was more disturbed than entertained. Indeed, one could see the phenomenon in a number of places in recent weeks: Obama’s magic no longer works. The allure of his words has grown weaker.

    It is not he himself who has changed, but rather the benchmark used to evaluate him. For a president, the unit of measurement is real life. A leader is seen by citizens through the prism of their lives — their job, their household budget, where they live and suffer. And, in the case of the war on terror, where they sometimes die.

    Political dreams and yearnings for the future belong elsewhere. That was where the political charmer Obama was able to successfully capture the imaginations of millions of voters. It is a place where campaigners — particularly those with a talent for oration — are fond of taking refuge. It is also where Obama set up his campaign headquarters, in an enormous tent called “Hope.”

    In his speech on America’s new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.

    The American president doesn’t need any opponents at the moment. He’s already got himself.

  15. This is why big media is dying. They think governing is about words. Governing is about one thing: problem solving. When the words no longer explain what is occurring in the lives of ordinary people the party is over. When the policies put forward fail to produce results the end is at hand. What is needed is a problem solver, and that is not what Obama is. He is a glad handling bullshit artist and front man for global interests and Chicago thugs.

  16. George Will on Hillary, Afghanistan, and the boob:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/02/this_will_not_end_well_99369.html

    But after 11 months of graceless disparagements of the 43rd president, the 44th acts as though he is the first president whose predecessor bequeathed a problematic world. And Obama’s second new Afghanistan policy in less than nine months strikingly resembles his predecessor’s plan for Iraq, which was: As Iraq’s security forces stand up, U.S. forces will stand down.

    Having vowed to “finish the job,” Obama revealed Tuesday that he thinks the job in Afghanistan is to get out of Afghanistan. This is an unserious policy. [snip]

    Although the war is in its 98th month, Obama’s “Mission Accomplished” banner will be unfurled 19 months from now — when Afghanistan’s security forces supposedly will be self-sufficient. He must know this will not happen.

    In a spate of mid-November interviews — while participating in the president’s protracted rethinking of policy — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described America’s Afghanistan goal(s) somewhat differently. They are “to defeat al-Qaeda and its extremist allies” because “al-Qaeda and the other extremists are part of a syndicate of terror, with al-Qaeda still being an inspiration, a funder, a trainer, an equipper and director of a lot of what goes on.” And: “We want to do everything we can to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda.” And: “We want to get the people who attacked us.” And: “We want to get al-Qaeda.” And: “We are in Afghanistan because we cannot permit the return of a staging platform for terrorists.” [snip]

    The president’s party will not support his new policy, his budget will not accommodate it, our overstretched and worn down military will be hard-pressed to execute it, and Americans’ patience will not be commensurate with Afghanistan’s limitless demands for it. This will not end well.

    A case can be made for a serious, meaning larger and more protracted, surge. A better case can be made for a radically reduced investment of resources and prestige in that forlorn country. Obama has not made a convincing case for his tentative surgelet.

    George Orwell said the quickest way to end a war is to lose it. But Obama’s half-hearted embrace of a half-baked nonstrategy — briefly feinting toward the Taliban (or al-Qaeda, or a “syndicate of terror”) while lunging for the exit ramp — makes a protracted loss probable.

  17. The deeper logic on why we are investing so heavily in Afghanistan. Chomsky is a leftist whereas Tarpley is from the right. But they agree on the energy angle.
    —————————–

    NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, this goes way back. I mean, the United States has sort of a comparative advantage in world affairs, namely, military might, not economic power, you know, not Treasury reserves. I mean, it’s a very powerful state, but, you know, it’s one of several. It’s comparable to Europe. It’s comparable to rising East Asia in, say, economic power. But in military power, it is supreme. The United States spends approximately as much as the rest of the world in military force. It’s far more technologically advanced. And when you have a comparative advantage, you tend to use it. So, policy decisions tend to drift towards where you’re strong. And where you’re strong is military force. It’s, you know, the old joke: if you have a hammer, everything you see is a nail. You know. And I think that’s very much of a driving force.

    And there’s also a longstanding imperial mentality, which says we have to control and dominate. And in particular, we have to dominate energy resources. That goes way back. You know, after the Second World War, it’s been maybe the prime factor in US [inaudible]-

    AMY GOODMAN: And the energy resources in Afghanistan?

    NOAM CHOMSKY: No, they’re not in Afghanistan. They’re in-mostly in the Gulf, secondarily in Central Asia. But Afghanistan is right in the middle of this system. I mean, there is a pipeline question. How powerful it is, you can speculate. But there have been longstanding plans for a pipeline from Turkmenistan in Central Asia to India, which would go-TAPI, it’s called: Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India.

    Now, that’s of significance to the United States for a number of reasons. For one thing, if it-it would run right through Afghanistan and through Kandahar province, one of the most conflicted areas. If it was established, it would, for one thing, reduce the reliance of the Central Asian states on Russia. So it would weaken their role. But more significant, it would bypass Iran. I mean, India needs energy, and the natural source is Iran. And, in fact, they’re discussing an Iran-to-India pipeline. But if you could get natural gas flowing from Central Asia to India, avoiding Iran, that would support the US policy, which is now very clear-in Obama’s case, it’s been made more concrete-of forming an alliance of regional states to oppose Iran.
    In fact, that’s-John Kerry, the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, recently made an important speech about that with regard to Israel-Palestine. He said we have to reconceptualize the issue so it’s not an Israel-Palestine problem, but rather, we’ll sort of put that to the side, and what we have to do is create an alliance of Israel and what are called the moderate Arab states. And “moderate” is a technical term, means they do what we say. And so, the moderate Arab states include the brutal Egyptian dictatorship, the radical fundamentalist dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, and so on. They are the moderates, and they have to join with Israel and us in an anti-Iranian alliance. And we have to, of course, break ongoing connections between Iran and India to the extent that we can and elsewhere. And that puts the Israel-Palestine problem-issue to the side.

    AMY GOODMAN: I want to get to Israel-Palestine, but we have to break. And before we do, just a quick question. Do you think Obama should pull the troops out of Afghanistan immediately?

    NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, you know, I think the Afghans should make that decision.

    AMY GOODMAN: How?

    NOAM CHOMSKY: They have ways. For example, what the peace movement calls for is their traditional way of making decisions: a loya jirga, major meeting of, you know, elders, other figures and so on, who will try to arrive at consensus on this with all the Afghans. And it should be their decision. I mean, we have no right to be there.

  18. The New York Times on the boobery of doubletalk:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/world/asia/02assess.html?_r=1&ref=politics

    President Obama went before the nation on Tuesday night to announce that he would escalate the war in Afghanistan. And Mr. Obama went before the nation to announce that he had a plan to end the war in Afghanistan.

    If the contrasting messages seemed jarring at first, they reflect the obstacles Mr. Obama faces in rallying an increasingly polarized country that itself is of two minds about what to do in Afghanistan. For those who still support the war, he is sending more troops. For those against it, he is offering the assurance of the exit ramp.

    He used language intended to appeal to different parts of the spectrum, at times echoing former President George W. Bush in reasserting America’s moral authority in the world while repudiating what he sees as the mistakes of the Bush years and insisting that “America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.” He tried to persuade people on both sides of the divide — and a Congress that must finance the war — to swallow their misgivings and come together long enough to see if his strategy works. [snip]

    Yet his answer to perhaps the most vexing decision to confront him yet in his presidency is one that may frustrate both sides more than it satisfies them, as suggested by the initial reaction. “The way that you win wars is you break the enemy’s will, not announce when you are leaving,” Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, said Tuesday before meeting with Mr. Obama at the White House, where he delivered much the same message in person.

    Norman Solomon, national co-chairman of the Progressive Democrats of America’s antiwar campaign, hung up from a conference call with fellow activists to say that they were all “totally unhappy” and to compare Mr. Obama’s decision to the escalations of Vietnam. “This is a clear case of a president getting in deeper and deeper and proclaiming to see light at the end of the tunnel,” he said. [snip]

    And yet, Mr. Obama at times sounded like Mr. Bush in justifying this war.

  19. [video at link]

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/02/cbs_bob_schieffer_obamas_afghan_strategy_isnt_logical.html

    CBS’ Bob Schieffer doesn’t “understand” how he can set a deadline while trying to defeat the enemy.

    Schieffer: “I don’t understand, I don’t understand Katie, how you can set a deadline on what you’re going to do. This is not a football game where there’s a clock where the time runs out. To win this war you have to defeat the enemy. How can we say in the beginning that we’re going to do that when we don’t know what’s going to happen?”

  20. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/afghanistan-obama-speech.html

    President Obama spoke 4,582 words in his primetime Afghanistan war speech at West Point last night.

    He said “al Qaeda” 22 times.

    He mentioned the “Taliban” 12 times.

    And here’s how many times the Democratic chief executive used the word “victory” — 0.

    That telling omission says more than anything about Obama’s 322d day in office when he gave his first major address as the United States’ commander-in-chief. [snip]

    Now, the Taliban and its extremist cohorts know when U.S. troops will start leaving. And so do America’s would-be Afghan collaborators whose eagerness to collaborate may well be tempered by the knowledge that they’ll be left alone at home before the end of the American president’s first term. [snip]

    All carefully-calculated, well-phrased tactical talk. But no words of winning a victory for the war’s immense dollar costs — $30 billion more just for the latest surge this fiscal year. Or for all the lives and limbs lost so far — and the additional losses yet to come, possibly from among his audience of young Army cadets.

    Meaning what? This is really a holding action? The professorial president doesn’t expect victory? He’s uncomfortable with talk of actually winning a war that he’s sending more troops into?

    One other interesting war speech stat: President Obama mentioned himself 44 times.

  21. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/02/barack-obama-afghanistan-taliban

    Barack Obama’s announcement of an Afghan “surge” is his frantic bid to rescue what promises to be a stumbling re-election campaign that must start in 2011. It oozes with his desperation not to be in Afghanistan. The question is how best to disengage. As in Vietnam and as the Russians found, withdrawal tends to be possible here in Afghanistan only after the generals on the ground have been given a last chance to claim victory. [snip]

    If the Taliban commanders are wise, and they usually are in these matters, they will simply wait, controlling the country areas and killing Nato patrols with sufficient regularity to keep western public opinion demoralised. As the saying goes, Nato has the watches but the Taliban has the time.

  22. In a spate of mid-November interviews — while participating in the president’s protracted rethinking of policy — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described America’s Afghanistan goal(s) somewhat differently. They are “to defeat al-Qaeda and its extremist allies” because “al-Qaeda and the other extremists are part of a syndicate of terror, with al-Qaeda still being an inspiration, a funder, a trainer, an equipper and director of a lot of what goes on.” And: “We want to do everything we can to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda.” And: “We want to get the people who attacked us.” And: “We want to get al-Qaeda.” And: “We are in Afghanistan because we cannot permit the return of a staging platform for terrorists.” [snip]
    *************
    NOW THAT’S HOW A PRESIDENT SPEAKS

  23. Separation of Powers Cited for W.H. Social Secretary

    The White House on Wednesday invoked the separation of powers to keep Desiree Rogers, President Obama’s social secretary, from testifying on Capitol Hill about how a couple of aspiring reality television show celebrities crashed a state dinner for the prime minister of India last week.

    “I think you know that, based on separation of powers, staff here don’t go to testify in front of Congress,’’ Mr. Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, told reporters during his regular briefing. “She won’t — she will not be testifying in front of Congress.’’

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/white-house-revises-rules-for-major-events/?hp
    ***************

    CLINTON FREAKING TESTIFIED BEFORE A GRAND JURY (WHICH I WAS AGAINST) AS THE PRESIDENT, AND THIS FOOL SERETARY GETS A PASS?

  24. Got to love John Carter from Texas…..from BP by the way
    ****************

    GOP Introduces Geithner Penalty Waiver Act

    Congressmen John Carter (R-TX) and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) yesterday introduced the Geithner Penalty Waiver Act, requiring that the IRS assess the same penalty against U.S. taxpayers that came forward in the UBS tax fraud investigation as paid by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner for failing to pay taxes on his IMF income — zero.

    http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/12/gop-introduces-.html

  25. Just watched a clip of disgrace for a human being Mathews apologize for his hurtful comments about the cadets last night….all the Hillary haters seem to be falling, from Richardson to Mathews….Now, if only Obama will seriously consider not running in 2012 and let Hillary take over…but a narcissist like Barry, as indicated above, will bring all of those down with him.

  26. This is exactly what I assumed was happening. Gates, Hillary, Mullen, Jones vs. the White House Idiots (unnamed but you can be reasonably sure they include MonserPower, Rice, Axelrod et.al.) and Obama doing what he does so well–dithering unsure what to do and afraid to do anything. The guy is pathetic. Not to be trusted. The bots may not like the policy but their man had the final say and he signed off on it. If they defend him at this point, if they try to blame others, then they are not worth listening to because they do not live in the real world.
    —————————————————————–
    Obama Had Rejected His Own Speech’s Surge Rationale
    by Gareth Porter

    WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama presented a case Tuesday for sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan that included both soaring rhetoric and a new emphasis on its necessity for U.S. national security.

    Obama said the escalation was for a “vital national interest” and invoked the threat of attacks from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, asserting that such attacks “are now being planned as I speak”.

    Despite Obama’s embrace of these new national security arguments, however, he has rejected within the past few weeks the critical link in the national security argument for deploying tens of thousands of additional troops – the allegedly indissoluble link between the Taliban insurgency and al Qaeda.

    Proponents of escalation have insisted that the Taliban would inevitably provide new sanctuaries for al Qaeda terrorists inside Afghanistan unless the U.S. counterinsurgency mission was successful.

    But during September and October, Obama sought to fend off escalation in Afghanistan in part by suggesting through other White House officials that the interests of the Taliban were no longer coincident with those of al Qaeda.

    In fact, intense political maneuvering between Obama and the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, over the latter’s troop increase request revolved primarily around the issue of whether the defeat of the Taliban was necessary to U.S. anti-al Qaeda strategy.

    The first round of the effort was triggered by the leak of McChrystal’s “initial assessment”, with its warning of “mission failure” if his troop deployment request was rejected. The White House fought back with anonymous comments quoted in the Washington Post Sept. 21 that the military was trying to push Obama into a corner on the troop deployment issue.

    One of the anonymous senior officials criticized a statement by Adm. Mike Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the war in Afghanistan would “probably need more forces”.

    To avoid being outmaneuvered by the military, Obama suggested in a press conference that the legitimacy of the Afghan government might now be so damaged by the blatantly fraudulent Aug. 20 election as to put into question a counterinsurgency strategy such as the one advanced in McChrystal’s assessment.

    Obama also raised a red flag about the conventional argument from national security, saying he wasn’t going to “think that by sending more troops, we’re automatically going to make Americans safe”.

    Within a week, his national security adviser, Gen. James Jones, began to raise that issue explicitly.

    In an interview with Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, Jones suggested the question of why al Qaeda would want to move out of its present sanctuary in Pakistan to the uncertainties of Afghanistan would be one that the White House would be raising in response to McChrystal’s troop request.

    McChrystal’s rejoinder came in a speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London Oct. 1, in which he went further than any previous official rationale for the war. “[W]hen the Taliban has success,” said McChrystal, “that provides sanctuary from which al Qaeda can operate transnationally.”

    He was apparently arguing the Taliban wouldn’t even have to seize power nationally to provide a sanctuary for al Qaeda.

    Only three days later, however, the New York Times reported that “senior administration officials” were saying privately that Obama’s national security team was now “arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States”.

    That “shift in thinking”, as the Times reported, was an obvious indication that the White House was preparing to pursue a strategy that would not require the additional troops McChrystal was requesting because the Taliban need not be defeated.

    One of the senior officials interviewed by Times said the administration was now defining the Taliban as a group that “does not express ambitions of attacking the United States”. The Taliban were aligned with al Qaeda “mainly on the tactical front”, said the official.

    A second theme introduced by the official was that the Taliban could not be eliminated because it was too deeply entrenched in the country – quite a different goal from that of the counterinsurgency war proposed by McChrystal.

    That was an expression of resistance to what was soon reported to be a McChrystal request for a “low risk” option of 80,000 troops, combined with a suggestion that 20,000 troops would be the “high risk” option.

    But Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was determined to turn the White House around on the issue of McChrystal’s request. He was well aware of Obama’s political sensitivity about not being seen as on the wrong side of his national security team, and he effectively used that to force the issue.

    Gates worked with McChrystal, Mullen, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on a plan that would be presented to the White House as their consensus position on Afghanistan strategy.

    The plan, as the New York Times reported Oct. 27, was presented by an administration official as a compromise between the plan put forth by Vice President Joseph Biden for concentrating essentially on al Qaeda, and McChrystal’s counterinsurgency plan. It would be ostensibly aimed at protecting about 10 population centers, leaving the rest of the country to be handled by Special Operations Forces with the assistance of drones and air power.

    But the catch was that McChrystal was demanding an expansive definition of “population centers”, which would include most of the Taliban heartland of the country.

    McChrystal was still going to get his counterinsurgency war under the Gates plan.

    Notably absent from the Times report was any suggestion that Obama had given even tentative approval to the proposal. Only Obama’s advisers were said to be “coalescing around” the proposal. But “administration officials” confidently asserted that the only issue remaining was how many more troops would be required to “guard the vital parts of the country”.

    That confidence was evidently based on the fact that Obama’s national security team had already agreed on the options that would be presented to the president for decision. Two weeks after that report, Obama’s press secretary Robert Gibbs said he would consider four different options at a meeting with his national security team Nov. 11.

    The four options, as the Times reported the day of the meeting, ranged from a low-end option of 20,000 to roughly 40,000 troops. And Gates, Mullen and Clinton had “coalesced around” the middle option of about 30,000 troops.

    Gates and his allies had thus defined the options and stacked the deck in favor of the one they were going to support. And the fact that Obama’s national security was lined up in support of that option was already on the public record.

    It was a textbook demonstration of how the national security apparatus ensures that its policy preference on issues of military force prevail in the White House.

    Although Obama bowed to pressure from his major national security advisers to agree to the 30,000 troops, his conviction that the Taliban is not necessarily a mortal enemy of the United States could influence future White House policy decisions on Afghanistan.

    Obama’s speech even included the suggestion that the defeat of the Taliban was not necessary to U.S. security. That point could be used by Obama to justify future military or diplomatic moves to extract the United States from the quagmire he appeared to fear only a few weeks ago.

  27. UBS tax fraud investigation
    —————————-
    wow–that is a direct tie to you know who. Confloyd do you know anything about this? Is Wolf perchance involved. Footprints everywhere–like the saskwatch. And am I correct in assuming they were let off the hook? This outfit helped plan the Obama campaign in January 2008. Was this a Holder decision?

  28. Wbboei, is that article for saving Obama’s butt as in the national security guys made him do it? Am I reading it right? And yeah, Taliban are not so bad..they just help other terrorists.

  29. U.S. Secretary Hillary Clinton Meets With China’s AIDS Activist Gao Yaojie

    December 03, 2009

    On the eve of World AIDS Day, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with the outspoken China’s AIDS activist Dr Gao Yaojie at her office at around 2:00 PM for 15 minutes. The Secretary embraced what she called her ‘old friend.’ This is Madame Secretary’s fourth meeting with Dr Gao. Dr. Gao told Sec. Clinton that she had to leave China reluctantly because of the intense persecution against dissent voices in China. She also mentioned the persecution had intensified this year, not only against aids activists like her, but also against house church leaders such as Ms. Yang Rongli from Linfen City, Shanxi who received 7 years imprisonment on November 25 as a Christian church leader. According to Dr. Gao, The Sec told her through a translator that she is also a Christian. When Dr. Gao told the Secretary that she thought the Secretary was smarter than her husband, former president Bill Clinton, they burst to laughter. The US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women Affairs and Secretary’s Senior Advisor attended the meeting. Prior to that meeting, Dr. Gao held another 45-minute meeting with senior officials from DRL and Bureau for Asia and Pacific Affairs on the AIDS pandemic in China.

    Facing the imminent danger of arrest for her activism, exposing the truth about the cause of millions of AIDS-infected, and for offering her voice for that voiceless group, Dr. Gao was forced to leave her home in Henan and went into hiding on May 6th of this year. With the help of ChinaAid Association, she was able to flee out of China on August 7, 2009. On Tuesday, World AIDS Day, at a press conference hosted by Open Books and ChinaAid, she made her first public appearance at the National Press Club with her book launch called “China’s AIDS Plague: 10,000 Letters.” U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, the Chair of Congressional Task Force on International HIV/AIDS, commended Dr Gao’s courageous work in uncovering the truth behind the AIDS pandemic in China, despite persecution by the Chinese government. According to Dr. Gao’s own findings (she herself traveled several hundred villages in more than a dozen provinces in China) and to the Chinese government’s claim, the vast majority of millions of HIV/AIDS-infected in China were and currently are caused by the blood transfusions from hundreds of underground blood banks tainted with aids virus.

    “As the Mother Teresa of China, we had to take action to rescue this courageous honorable lady out of danger, ” said ChinaAid President Bob Fu, who personally made the arrangement for a staff members to accompany Dr. Gao from China to U.S. “We are pleased that she can now write her book in the U.S. free from fear by the Chinese government.” Dr Gao is currently living at Texas.

    http://pakistanchristian.tv/news/2009-12-03_US_Secretary_Hillary_Clinton_Meets_With_Chinas_AIDS_Activist_Gao_Yaojie.cfm

  30. Secretary Clinton to Present 2009 Awards for Corporate Excellence

    Bureau of Public Affairs, Office of the Spokesman
    Washington, DC
    December 2, 2009

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will announce and present the 2009 Secretary of State’s Awards for Corporate Excellence (ACE) on Wednesday, December 9, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. in the Benjamin Franklin Room of the U.S. Department of State.

    The Secretary of State awards the ACE in recognition of the vital role that U.S. businesses play worldwide to advance outstanding corporate citizenship, innovation and democratic principles and to highlight the Department’s commitment to promote exemplary business practices globally. This year marks the 11th annual presentation of the ACE.

    Two 2009 ACE winners were selected from the following 11 finalists: Chevron Corporation in the Philippines; Cisco Systems in Lebanon; Communication Cellulaire d’Haiti/Voila (Trilogy International Partners); Cummins China; Intel Corporation in Costa Rica; Marriott International in Jordan; Officenet Staples in Argentina; Oracle Corporation in Romania; Protec in Vietnam; TOMS Shoes in Argentina; and White & Case LLP in Russia.

    After the presentation of the awards, Robert D. Hormats, Under Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, will lead the interactive portion of the ACE ceremony via satellite with U.S. Ambassadors and local company executives at the U.S. Embassies which submitted winning nominations.

    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/dec/133023.htm

  31. CNN will have to dump Donna Brazile and Roland Martin if they ever want ratings to stop dropping. Another worthless Big Media outlet sinking:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/anderson-cooper-ratings-2009-12

    Anderson Cooper is fading in the ratings.

    The respected CNN anchor has seen his numbers slip significantly through the past year. His 10 p.m. show, “Anderson Cooper 360,” has declined 62% in total viewers and 70% in adults 25-54 from November 2008, according to Nielsen figures.

    Last month, in Cooper’s time slot, Fox News’ “On the Record” attracted an average viewership of 1.9 million while “360” averaged 672,000; repeats of MSNBC’s “Countdown” and HLN’s Nancy Grace show averaged 655,000 and 458,000, respectively.

    But in the ad-friendly 25-54 demo, those same repeats won out over Cooper with 224,000 (MSNBC) and 214,000 (HLN).

  32. Poor CNN, the Hillary Hating #2 network after NBC/MSNBC:

    http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/12/02/cnn-missing-dobbs/

    Could things get any worse for CNN? Apparently, the answer is ‘yes.’

    The pioneering and once dominant leader in cable news has been hemorrhaging viewers for some time and earlier this year suffered the indignity of slipping to last place among cable news networks, behind even its sister network Headline News.

    Now come the November Nielsen ratings showing that the surprise departure of Lou Dobbs has cost the network even more viewers.

    After Dobbs announced his resignation on air on Wednesday November 11, CNN suffered a 25% decline among all viewers in Dobbs’ 7pm time slot, and a 26% decline among adults 25-54.

    Meanwhile – surprise, surprise – CNN’s competition in the 7pm slot at FOX News, The FOX Report with Shephard Smith, scored its highest rated month of the year in November with more than 2.1 million total viewers and just over 500,000 viewers in the A25-54 demo.

    CNN’s fall after Dobbs’ departure also allowed MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews to eke its way into second place 7 pm slot in November with 672,000 total viewers and 184,000 viewers among Adults 25-54.

  33. LOL!!! Dobbs took his audience with him. People aren’t watching Obama’s asswipes.

    Wbboei, No I hadn’t heard about UBS, but will shortly be looking into it. This could be the magic that will take Obama to the impeachment court! Hopefully in time to save our democracy!!

  34. Wbboei, is that article for saving Obama’s butt as in the national security guys made him do it? Am I reading it right? And yeah, Taliban are not so bad..they just help other terrorists.
    —————————————————————
    It does not work that way. Once he signs off on it hearing both sides of the debate he owns the decision. By the very fact that he made such a production of this process, I mean with headlines like—Obama is studying the problem then the next thing you know Obama entering the decisionmaking stage then nothing until Obama has arrived at a decision and informed subordinates of his decision and called Hillary to instruct her what his decision was, to the way he screwed up the 18 months–if it goes south, it is a little tough for him to fire her, or blame her. There comes a point where all the narcissism bites him in the ass, and we are there. The only out he is left with is that the execution was faulty as with Craig. In this case, execution rests with the military, not Hillary. Furthermore, she is not the only one in the faction. If he fires her for this they wont be putting any likenesses of him on Mount Rushmore, because he will go down as one of the most reviled Presidents in history.

  35. Matthews apologizes for `enemy camp’ remark
    Dec 2 10:24 PM US/Eastern

    SNIP:

    Matthews said on his show Wednesday that he had gotten “some very tough calls” from former cadets and parents of cadets, who told him the audience of military officers and officers-in-training are trained not to show the kind of emotion that he thought was lacking. He said he had no reason to assume that those in Obama’s audience were more hawkish on the war than the president.

    “I’ve heard too many politicians say, `Oh, that was taken out of context,’ to explain something they wish they hadn’t sent,” he said. “Let me just say to the cadets and their parents, former cadets and everyone who cares about this country and those who defend it, I used the wrong words and, worse than that, I said something that is just not right and for that I deeply apologize.”

    It’s not the first time the motor-mouthed “Hardball” host has seen his mouth get him into trouble.

    breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CBIURG5&show_article=1&catnum=0

  36. Big media may think this is all about fighting terrorism, but there is a much larger agenda here. It has to do with resources, nuclear no-proliferation, dealing with Iran, control of central Asia and other factors. Terrorism is the mantra the public will rally around but it is naive to assume that is the sole or even primary rationale.

  37. Everyone-

    Start checking your local talk show stations.

    Ours said: “After the speech Obama gave last night escalating the War in A-stan, Obama supporters are jumping ship in droves!” 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Adding, the Dem Party is splitting.. boo-hoo!

  38. Thanks, admin for posting the video-

    Here We Go Again!

    Dec 2, 2009

    By Robert Scheer

    It is already a 30-year war begun by one Democratic president, and thanks to the political opportunism of the current commander in chief the Afghanistan war is still without end or logical purpose. President Barack Obama’s own top national security adviser has stated that there are fewer than 100 al-Qaida members in Afghanistan and that they are not capable of launching attacks. What superheroes they must be, then, to require 100,000 U.S. troops to contain them.

    The president handled that absurdity by conflating al-Qaida, which he admitted is holed up in Pakistan, with the Taliban and denying the McChrystal report’s basic assumption that the enemy in Afghanistan is local in both origin and focus. Obama stated Tuesday in a speech announcing a major escalation of the war, “It’s important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.” But he then cut off any serious consideration of that question with the bald assertion that “we did not ask for this fight.”

    Of course we did. The Islamic fanatics who seized power in Afghanistan were previously backed by the U.S. as “freedom fighters” in what was once marketed as a bold adventure in Cold War one-upmanship against the Soviets. It was President Jimmy Carter, aided by a young liberal hawk named Richard Holbrooke, now Obama’s civilian point man on Afghanistan, who decided to support Muslim fanatics there. Holbrooke began his government service as one of the “Best and the Brightest” in Vietnam and was involved with the rural pacification and Phoenix assassination program in that country, and he is now a big advocate of the counterinsurgency program proposed by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal to once again win the hearts and minds of locals who want none of it.

    The current president’s military point man, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, served in Carter’s National Security Council and knows that Obama is speaking falsely when he asserts it was the Soviet occupation that gave rise to the Muslim insurgency that we abetted. Gates wrote a memoir in 1996 which, as his publisher proclaimed, exposed “Carter’s never-before-revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen—six months before the Soviets invaded.”

    Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was asked in a 1998 interview with the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur if he regretted “having given arms and advice to future terrorists,” and he answered, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?” Brzezinski made that statement three years before the 9/11 attack by those “stirred-up Muslims.”

    So here we go again, selling firewater to the natives and calling it salvation. We have decided to prop up a hopelessly corrupt Afghan government because, as Obama argued in one of the more disgraceful passages of Tuesday’s West Point speech, “although it was marred by fraud, [the recent] election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.”

    To suggest that the Afghan government will be in seriously better shape 18 months after 30,000 additional U.S. and perhaps 5,000 more NATO troops are dispatched is bizarrely out of touch with the strategy of the McChrystal report, which calls for American troops to restructure life down to the level of the most forlorn village. Surely the civilian and military supporters of that approach who are cheering Obama on have been giving assurances that he will not be held to such an unrealistically short timeline. Evidence of this was offered in the president’s speech when he said of the planned withdrawal of some forces by July of 2011: “Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We’ll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul.”

    A very long haul indeed, if one checks the experience of Matthew Hoh, the former Marine captain who was credited with being as successful as anyone in implementing the counterinsurgency strategy now in vogue. In his letter of resignation as a foreign service officer in charge of one of the most hotly contested areas, Hoh wrote: “In the course of my five months of service in Afghanistan … I have lost understanding and confidence in the strategic purpose of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan. … I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul.”

    Maybe they should have given Capt. Hoh the Noble Peace Prize.

    http://www.truthdig.com/

  39. djia
    December 2nd, 2009 at 11:57 pm

    Matthews apologizes for `enemy camp’ remark

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

    Matthews is lucky the cadet’s families and supporters didn’t call for Tweety’s head on a silver platter! Enemy Camp, he’s really losing it!

  40. Code pink are a disgrace to start harping on anout the rights of women when they threw the best woman around, Hillary Clinton, under the bus and went with Obama, now they look like complete idiots.

    So, ladies hows that vote for Obama looking now then?

  41. Wel this is interesting, NBC is no longer ownd by GE, Comcast has bought it out.

    Do you think we’re going to see a change of thought over at MSNBC?

    Who owns Comcast?

  42. Oh poor Obama, looks like his escalation is unravelling fast.

    htt p://ww w.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232803/Were-Afghanistan-years-Army-chief-blows-hole-Brown-hopes-early-exit.html

    ‘We’re in Afghanistan for five more years’: Army chief blows hole in hopes of early exit

    The head of the Army has delivered a rebuke to Gordon Brown and Barack Obama’s hopes of an early exit from Afghanistan.

    General Sir David Richards said it was ‘slightly false’ to view plans to send an extra 30,000 troops as paving the way for a ‘withdrawal’.

    And he claimed British soldiers would be engaged in offensive operations in the country for five more years – undercutting the timetable announced by the Prime Minister.

  43. MoonOnPluto, the Reagan tree looks good; Comcast should get rid of the MSNBC crew from the bottom on; General Richards is saying what everyone knows to be the more likely outcome.

  44. I’m glad Dobbs left. He was the only reason I watched CNN, the only bright light of integrity.

    —————-
    Matthews, Olberman, et al…should never be allowed a pulpit to speak their trash from. They did it to Hillary and Chelsea now West Point. And they think an apology will undue the permanent damage. Their amateurish tingling outburst are a joke.

    I hope West Point sues.

  45. Reflect, Rejoice, Renew is the theme of the Obama white house Christmas.

    So what happen to hope and change? That theme sounds like Bush II.

  46. Sometimes you have to wonder where Matthews and Olberman leave their heads. The military has alwasy supported war. It is the way they make their careers. Presenting that in front of a military audience was the most friendly audience he could find. Bush I would have done that. In fact he did do that a couple of times.

  47. Obama to welcome Lebanon’s president

    WASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama will welcome Lebanon’s President Michel Sleiman to Washington later this month, the White House has said.

    Sleiman will visit the White House on Monday, December 14, as the Obama administration tries to reignite its Middle East peace push and back Lebanon’s fragile democracy and territorial integrity.

    Obama wants to bring up “a broad range of issues of mutual concern, including efforts to strengthen the bilateral relationship between the United States and Lebanon, achieve a comprehensive regional peace, and implement relevant UN Security Council resolutions,” the White House said on Wednesday.

    Washington has been a strong supporter of western-backed Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri who formed a new unity government last month after more than four months of difficult negotiations with the Hezbollah-led opposition.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hGwduchKaSGMdqEklWzmg3KRtYlQ

    ——————

    Yep. This is the government that just voted to allow Hizbollah to continue arming against Israel.

  48. Strange and stranger…

    December 2, 2009

    Barack Obama Ecstasy Pills Hit Streets: Approval Ratings High

    PALMVIEW, Texas (CBS/AP)

    President Barack Obama’s approval rating may be hovering in the 50 percent range, but that doesn’t mean America’s Commander-in-Chief isn’t catching on with new constituents.

    There is now a line of Ecstasy pills made in the image of the 44th president of the United States, according to Texas police who have snatched a batch off the streets.

    Ecstasy is known for a sense of elation, diminished feelings of fear and anxiety, and ability to induce a sense of intimacy with others.

    Perhaps a good Election Day strategy to get out the vote?

    A stash of the brightly colored tablets was found Monday during a south Texas traffic stop. Police in Palmview detained a driver after finding black tar heroin, cocaine, marijuana and several Ecstasy pills in the back of his car.

    The drugs look like a “vitamin for kids,” police spokesman Lenny Sanchez said. Police say that other Ecstasy pills they found were made to look like the cartoon characters Homer Simpson and the Smurfs.

    The 22-year-old driver is expected to face felony drug possession counts.

    Palmview is near the border with Mexico.

    No word on the driver’s political affiliation.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/02/crimesider/entry5864845.shtml

  49. The usually compliant Dionne called this “the Goldilocks strategy”
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/03/obamas_goldilocks_strategy_99382.html

    Obama was trying to identify middle ground by offering a Goldilocks strategy: neither too hawkish nor too dovish, but just right. He pointedly reassured doves that he had no interest in a “dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort,” while insisting to hawks that “our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

  50. I can’t remember, did she back Hillary, i think all of Arkansas did. If she did, she’s looking like collateral damage by Obama.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arkansas/2010_arkansas_senate_lincoln_runs_behind_four_gop_challengers

    Seems Blanche Lincoln is primed to lose her senate seat in Arkansas and its all down to Healthcare support.

    Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln has found herself right in the middle of the national debate over health care, and that’s a tough spot as she prepares to face Arkansas voters in 2010.

    As she did in September, Lincoln trails four possible Republican challengers in the latest Rasmussen Reports Election 2010 survey. In fact, support for the incumbent ranges from only 39% to 41% in these match-ups.

    The two-term senator, who was reelected with 54% of the vote in 2004, appears more vulnerable because of her visible and pivotal role in the Senate debate over health care. Lincoln was the last Democrat to vote for allowing the debate to formally begin, and she has taken pains to point out that a vote to begin debate is not a vote for the bill.

  51. A friend told me she heard on the radio that Tiger’s name has been changed. He will not be called Tiger anymore; henceforth he is known as, “Cheetah.”

  52. Unfortunately (for Obots) Obama is not one of the 25 smartest people of the decade. Hillary is #4. Some choices are dubious. For instance A. Huffington for her blog is 14 and PM of India, Singh who single-handedly changed the economic growth prospects of India even before he became PM, is #15 (now this guy is a professor-politician you can believe in, not the current WH occupant. BTW he is a minority too, but in India minority-majority thing is not such a big deal).

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-30/the-25-smartest-people-of-the-decade/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsR2#gallery=1034;page=1

  53. Moon: collateral damage by Obama begins with the dim losses in Virginia and New Jersey. It will gather momentum in the weeks and months to come. It will coincide with the declining trajectory of his presidency, which will look like the glide path of a v-2 rocket by the end of 2010.

    Anything we can do to hasten his political demise which is otherwise legitimate should be pursued with a vengeance. It is a race against the clock before he destroys the country. On the other hand, maybe I am wrong and his escalate then withdraw strategy will work, his political payoff to the insurance companies will work out well for the American Public, especially for those whose premiums go up, and especially those young starry eyed idealists who ended up fined and in jail because they wont pay to play. And maybe we will have an economic expansion like me had in the late 1990s. And maybe the lion will lay down with the lamb. And maybe GM under Obama will surpass Honda. Whatever we do we must not lose hope or deny change. Yes, there is a universe of possibilities here that I have not even considered, so I must not take such a morbid view. However, on the odds, all we will see is more of the same, and the harm will be cumulative. If we can prevent him from subverting democracy then our hour of redemption will be at hand-maybe. I just wish we had a better alternative than the Republicans, but if not then it is any port in a storm.

    If we are inclined to do something constructive, we would do well to consider the link Debbie posted on November 30. The seven stories which Obama does not want to be told, and earnestly hopes to censor. These are the chinks in his armor, the fault lines in his terrain, and the areas where he is vulnerable. These are the stories which have gained traction with the deluded class of opinion makers and they should be exploited to full advantage by anyone who is seriously concerned about the future of the county. I have saved it to hard drive.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29993.html

    The failure of the Daily Beast to list Obama as one of the best and brightest is understandable. Last year’s debutramp does not command the same spotlight and last year belonged to him. What a difference a year makes, which reminds me of something the poet Robert Burns said to no lesser a personage than a barnyard mouse:

    The best laid schemes of mice and men GANG AFT AGLEY
    And leave us not but grief and pain for promised joy
    Still thou art blessed compared to me
    The present only toucheth thee
    And ouch I backward cast my ee
    On prospects drear
    And forward tho I cannot see
    I GUESS AND FEAR

    For us the $13 trillion question is why wasn’t the Messiah included in the list of the 25 best and brightest, since Hillary was. One answer is that he is God not a mortal, and mere mortals cannot be expected to compete against Gods, the Marquis of Queensbury would never permit it. The better answer in the eyes of the more rational members of the cult is this: If a god he be, then he is a god that failed.

  54. This “job summit” that he is holding today…you know the one that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was not invited to???

    It is one big public relations moment, one of umpteen kodak moments to change the message. He doesn’t have a clue how to solve the unemployment crisis.

  55. There is now a line of Ecstasy pills made in the image of the 44th president of the United States, according to Texas police who have snatched a batch off the streets.
    ———————————————-
    A perfect example of how he has created jobs. At least it is the free market at work. When government tries to do it we spend 25 million to create a $25,000 job so Harry Reid can crow about it. The return on investment (roi) is not good. As for Harry, he is going down. If Sue Lowden gets the nomination (the UNV basketball coach’s son is running against her) she will beat dirty Harry. I think she is a compelling candidate, and sooner or later the press will take notice, if as I say she wins the primary. I believe she will.

  56. Jan: on this job summit nonsense. Larry Doyle called the game on him in an article posted at No Quarter entitled Jobs is Job 1. What Obama fails to understand is the ability to politicize a problem and project faux empathy about it is not the same thing as solving it. The core problem, as Larry points out is Obama has created perverse incentives for investment economic expansion ergo jobs. He has introduced major uncertainty and massive additional costs which will cripple and destroy small business in this country. His failure to invite the Chamber of Commerce is symptomatic of the problem. It is routine behavior from an asshole who has never run so much as a hotdog stand. My fear is that by introducing the wrong policies he has guaranteed permanent 10% unemployment and that bodes ill for EVERYONE. The only thing he can do next is introduce massive tax increases. He has painted himself into a corner. Big Media will swallow his job creation dog and pony show hook line and sinker, but here is the truth of the matter:

    ————————————————
    JOBS IS JOB #1–by Larry Doyle

    “Kiss me!!”

    “What?”

    That’s right, I said, “Kiss me!!”

    Many a businessman is familiar with the basic principle of “kiss me,” that is “Keep It Simple, Stupid.”

    Regrettably, Washington is not familiar with that simplest of business principles. Legislative bills that run into the thousands of pages and admittedly go unread by our lawmakers prior to vote are often an unmitigated disaster for American business. How so?

    These bills create an environment of uncertainty. What do business leaders do when they’re unsure of what is coming out of Washington and how it might impact their business? “When in doubt, wait it out.”

    I witness increasing evidence of this basic business dynamic and believe it will be on full display this coming Thursday. What will happen Thursday?

    President Obama is hosting a Jobs Summit in Washington. Sounds like a reasonable idea given the domestic employment situation is so bad and getting worse, despite assertions to the contrary by a number of public officials and economists.

    How convenient that the summit is being held Thursday. Why? This summit will provide plenty of photo ops and media coverage highlighting that Washington is hard at work addressing the employment situation right before the monthly unemployment report is released on Friday morning. Do not think for a second that the timing of this summit was not strategically scheduled to negate the negative impact of another weak report.

    What will we learn and hear from business leaders? The environment of uncertainty created by Obama’s attempt to massively overhaul large parts of the American political landscape is anything but conducive for jobs growth. Why? Business leaders see a strong likelihood of their fixed costs headed higher under this adminstration.

    President Obama is commander in chief and obviously allowed to set the agenda. He has made no bones that his top priorities are: health care reform, education, financial regulatory reform, and energy under his proposed cap and trade. While Barack and team are hard at work pushing this agenda, emphasis and focus on job creation has languished. Jobs should always be a president’s #1 priority.

    If Americans are not at work, then American principles and policies won’t work. I think Barack and team are learning that lesson right now.

    One final point, if I may. On the topic of cap and trade, has the entire premise for this legislation and initiative now been brought into question with the news that a trove of conflicting data on this issue has been buried? Is the American public and the world at large being massively hoodwinked on this topic? While so-called experts and global leaders, including President Obama, will soon convene in Copenhagen on this topic, who amongst them will call for a full and thorough airing of this data?

    Remember Barack, it’s all about jobs.

    “Kiss me!!”

  57. “What Obama fails to understand is the ability to politicize a problem and project faux empathy about it is not the same thing as solving it.”

    ——————
    Exactly! Larry Doyle is right on the mark!

    And if they try to fund the escalation of troops to Afghanistan with taxes, won’t that also hurt jobs? I read somewhere that someone had suggested using the stimulus they have yet to spread like manure to pay for it.

  58. Seems Blanche Lincoln is primed to lose her senate seat in Arkansas and its all down to Healthcare support
    ——————————————
    I want the kind of health care Hillary proposed. When we can afford it. I reject categorically Obamas under the table deals that benefit the insurance companies–just as I resent what he has done to enrich the banks. Each of his dirty deals has come at the expense of the American taxpayer and a 13 trillion dollar debt. If as someone said the banks have paid off the debt then get ready for round 2. If we want to fix the uninsured then do it with stimulus monies. You do not need to destroy the system with so little payback except to the General Electrics who got him elected. Is the left too stupid to figure out who the guy works for? Are they? Oh that right they are in love. And a madman and lover are blind. But that does not mean they are forgiven.

  59. The arrogance of the left is such that they see someone who works for a living and does not have a college degree as ignorant and/or as a cash cow for their social engineering and redistributionist dalliances. The see these people as country bumpkins who are easily seduced by patten medicine shows, fast talking carnivals and the girl on the flying trapese. If only these bumpkins had the superior education, anaytical skills, and moral qualities of their betters the elite class of which they are proud to be a member . . but alas it is no use.

    The blind acceptance of Obama by the privileged class effectively shatters this illusion. If you want to know who the real rubes are look to the Georgetown social set. They got taken and fleeced by this teleprompter wielding gladhandling carnival barker worse than an any county bumpkin visiting a state fair in a Willa Cather novel about life in small town America mid 19th century. There is no fool like an elitist fool. And they are in a position to do far more damage.

Comments are closed.