Yeah, only two weeks to fix. I read this when the story came out and forgot to write about it. I’m pretty certain some other bloggers pointed it out immediately after it was published, but just today the New York Times published their correction.
If you have not been watching the high-quality Reason TV videos during the last few months, you’re missing some good Web content. This video gets into the anti-war protests from the past, and the lack of mainstream Democrats protesting now.
…in the Nation of Sweden, with all due apologies to the Bard, and it stinks like the Chicago at low tide. It is Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange. Mr. Assange, for those who haven’t heard, is the Australian hacker “Internet activist” who has decided that it is his mission to play “cop of the world.” Read more
Can’t say this surprises me because more than one of the Iraq veterans I have talked to have been telling me for years they found WMD and evidence of a program. But, with the release of more documents by WikiLeaks … the truth can now be told. Read more
OK, hell has frozen over. It’s snowing in Miami. Global warming has ended. I play the violin like Elana James … ummm … quick, jump in, everyone. Your wildest dreams can now come true. Vice President Joe Biden to former President George W. Bush … “Thank you Mr President”. Read more
I watched this run all day yesterday on Fox and MSNBC. Again and again and I could not get enough. It made me look to the Lord and say thanks. Thank you for these men and women. Thank you for those who gave their lives. Thank you for allowing me to be born in this country and call these men my brothers and the women my sisters. I think you will agree. Read more
The last combat troops have officially left Iraq, leaving behind 50,000 advisers. I just wanted to mark this moment by thanking the following soldiers and groups that helped make us victorious, not by conquering Iraq … but by liberating them. Freedom is not free. The Iraqis have discovered this, sometimes the hard way. It is something most Americans know instinctively. God bless them all. Read more
From the National Security Adviser to one of our worst Presidents, at the helm when Iran took Americans hostage for more than a year, and helped negotiate away the Panama Canal, takes shot at Iraq war. OK, sure you got rid of Saddam … but did it make the mideast safer? Pay particular attention to the sucking sound from the MSNBC folks.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4-czcazdWw
Let’s kinda put this in perspective … no … let’s let the Israeli President put this in perspective shall we?
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWwTeGnKEz4
On the campaign trail in 2007, Senator Obama was having a tough time using the prevention of a genocide in Iraq as a good reason to keep our troops in Iraq. President Obama yesterday insisted the international community should not shy away from acting when a genocide is occurring.
Can someone please ask the president what he means?
I understand that people don’t get the reason why we needed to act – with military intervention – in Iraq while the United States did not act – with military intervention – in places like Darfur. Quite honestly, the United States must first be concerned with the health and security of the United States, and the Middle East takes precedence when it comes to our safety and economy.
That’s a tough pill to swallow when a genocide is happening in Darfur, but what has/is the “international community” done for Darfur? Not much I presume.
Hat tip to Jim Hoft, a.k.a the Gateway Pundit.
Here is the story in the USA Today article from 2007.
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
“Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.
“We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea,” he said.
And now from an AP story yesterday, where there was an interesting line dropped in the middle of the story, which I have emphasized.
“Threatening Israel with destruction or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews is deeply wrong and only serves to evoke in the minds of the Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve,” Obama added.
It was a pointed message to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has expressed doubts that 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis and who has urged that Israel be wiped from the map.
“He should make his own visit” to Buchenwald, Obama told NBC in an interview Friday. He added: “I have no patience for people who would deny history.”
Earlier, the president told reporters: “The international community has an obligation, even when it’s inconvenient, to act when genocide is occurring.”
Obama is the first U.S. president to visit Buchenwald, and the stop was personal. A great-uncle helped liberate a nearby satellite camp, Ohrdruf, in early April 1945 just days before other U.S. Army units overran Buchenwald.
Ohrdruf no longer stands. But Buchenwald’s main gate, crematorium, hospital and two guard towers have been kept as a memorial.
What is the president’s definition of action?
Is it strong diplomatic efforts followed by strong military action if diplomacy does not work? Or is it strong diplomatic efforts followed by strongly worded United Nations letters followed by more diplomatic efforts, more letters and the threat of military action.
I’m not implying that President Obama has taken the military option off the table, I’m suggesting that terrorists and our enemies – and yes they are out there – are betting that Obama will not go the military route at all.
It may be a pretty good bet.
Today, President Obama asked Congress for an additional $85 billion in supplemental funding for military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Feb. 24, Obama stated that military spending would no longer be “hidden” within supplemental bills, it would be included in the regular budget request.
Of course, the spending was never really “hidden” since it was real spending and always included in reporting, but that did not stop the Obama team from complaining about the way things were done. They absolutely dismissed emergency spending legislation – until day 80 in office.
Here’s a story courtesy of Wired with a direct quote from Obama on Feb. 24…
In his address last night on the economic crisis, President Barack Obama made it official: No more budgetary sleight-of-hand at the Pentagon.
As we have noted here before, the U.S. military has largely paid for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency spending measures, in effect keeping wartime costs off the books. In addition to masking skyrocketing budget growth at the Department of Defense, this process has allowed the services to treat budget supplementals as a piggy bank for new procurement. Members of Congress may have grumbled about poor oversight, but they have largely acquiesced.
Obama’s message? Not anymore.
“That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said. “For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price.”
Forty-five days later, that promise has expired. Here’s the report from the AP on the Fox News Web site.
President Obama asked Congress on Thursday for $83.4 billion for U.S. military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, pressing for special troop funding that he opposed two years ago when he was senator and George W. Bush was president.
Obama’s request, including money to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, would push the costs of the two wars to almost $1 trillion since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The additional money would cover operations into the fall.
Obama is also requesting $350 million in new funding to upgrade security along the U.S.-Mexico border and to combat narcoterrorists, along with another $400 million in counterinsurgency aid to Pakistan.
“Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to take responsibility for their own future — and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan,” Obama wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
The AP story goes on to note the administration admits they did not like the policy in the past, but this time it was necessary since the money would be needed before Congress completed their regular appropriations process.
Uhh. OK.
It’s all smoke and mirrors and politics. It does not matter whether the spending is in the budget or in supplementals. They used the Bush administration policy as a campaign point, got into office and did exactly the same thing the Bush administration was doing.
Another promise expired. When do we start calling President Obama a liar?
So, how’s that wiretap program going Barack?