Timothy Birdnow

Expect more of the same hysterical Climate Change hogwash from the upcoming U.S. Climate Change Science Report (CCSP).  Roger Pielke, Sr. rips into the soon-to-be-released fantasy in this piece at Climate Science.

According to Dr. Pielke:

This US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report is Co-Chaired by Thomas R. Karl, Jerry Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson with the Senior Editor and Synthesis Team Coordinator Susan J. Hassol. These are the same individuals who have led past CCSP reports (e.g. see and see), with Tom Karl and Tom Peterson deliberately excluding scientific perspectives that differ from their viewpoints (i.e. see). Susan Hassol was writer of the HBO Special ``To Hot Not to Handle``. This HBO show clearly had a specific perspective on the climate change issue, and lacked a balanced perspective. The HBO Executive Producer was Ms. Laurie David.

The remainder of the Karl et al CCSP report necessarily miscommunicates climate information since it is built on their incorrect focus on ``reducing heat trapping emissions``, rather than also on the role of natural variations as observed in the past, and on the other first order climate forcings such as the role of aerosols in precipitation, nitrogen deposition and land use/land cover change (e.g. see).

End Excerpt

Of course, the Media will ballyhoo this triumph of sophistry as THE definitive pontification on all things green and beautiful, and it will be just more ``proof`` that ``science`` has spoken.

Dr. Pielke says it best

``The response of the media when this report is released in its final form will also be enlightening. Those reporters who parrot the synthesis without questioning its obvious bias and conflict of interest should be identified as sycophants. Those who adequately communicate the diversity of scientifically supported disagreements with the report should be lauded for the true journalist that they are.``

Anyone want to wager on how many adequately communicate the diversity of scientifically supported disagreements in the Mainstream Media?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 539 words, total size 4 kb.

by Dana Mathewson

NRO editor Mark Hemingway went "undercover" to a coffee house 
gathering where "ordinary citizens" were supposedly writing the 
Democratic Party's platform!

Did he get beat up?  Did he survive?  Did he turn them toward the light?

As they used to say, "Read All About It" here:

http://tinyurl.com/5mvckx
--
The same thing happened today that happened yesterday, only to 
different people.
-- Walter Winchell

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

by Jack Kemp (the unpolitician):

The "Prius set" mentioned in the AT blog piece "Frozen Fish Chic" http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/frozen_fish_chic.html can also lower their carbon footprint by cooking food on their engine block. The cult book classic, "Manifold Destiny," will be reissued and available in paperback this coming November at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Manifold-Destiny-Guide-Cooking-Engine/dp/1416596232/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217481079&sr=8-1
Wikipedia has described this work, first published in 1989, with mention of regional recipes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold_Destiny_%28cookbook%29
Here is an excerpt from the online article:
"The authors claimed inspiration from a trip from Montreal to Boston, where the authors were inspired to keep a package of smoked meat from Schwartz's in Montreal hot by placing it in a secure spot on the car's engine block, having heard that it was said to be common for truckers to keep cans of soup hot by doing the same thing."

END OF QUOTE

If you combine this with a roadkill cookbook http://www.amazon.com/How-Cook-Roadkill-Richard-Marcou/dp/0963706209/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217481518&sr=1-4 , think of all the carbon credits you could save by not having to drive to the supermarket or grow grain to raise that meat.

I wonder if Al Gore ever eats the geese sucked into the engines of his private jet. If he does, he could help save the planet. Why should he bother going to the Citronelle, a fancy French restaurant in DC, when he can clean up our flyways and highways and "eat local?"

Jack

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

Jack Kemp`s piece on the Nancy Pelosi mumblefest he attended appears as a blogpost at American Thinker this morning.  If you missed it the first time, mosey on over to the Thinker for a peek.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/nancy_pelosi_outplatitudes_oba.html

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

By Jack Kemp (not the politician):
 
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered a talk on Tuesday afternoon to a largely (90%) female -- and probably Democratic -- audience of admirers at the 92nd Street YMHA-YWHA in New York. Ms. Pelosi came to the 92nd Street Y to promote her new book, "Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters -- and to talk about politics, not necessarily in that order.
 
Ms. Pelosi's most notable statements included a response to an audience question, in which she stated she was not interested in accepting the nomination as Barack Obama's Vice Presidential running mate. She stated her current job put her in charge of things and she didn't want to take a "number two" position, understandably.
 
Another notable statement included her listing a group of Democratic policies, ending with energy independence, then saying "We (the Democrats) are in the lead in all these areas." No mention was made of opposition to drilling offshore and blocking a bill coming to a vote on the floor of the House. Or the 18% positive - 77% negative national approval ratings in the AP-Ipsos Poll, along with other polls' similar results. http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm
 
Another striking statement Ms. Pelosi made was her statement that "terrorism hadn't been there (in Iraq) before the US entered the country. This statement is highly problematic, given the evidence of rape rooms, people thrown into wood chippers, Saddam's financing of $25,000 for each family of someone who blew themselves up in Israel or Gaza. But Ms. Pelosi wasn't taking questions directly from the floor and the few she answered were capable of being screened for whatever standard her handlers and admirers wanted.
 
The most striking statement was one Speaker Pelosi made near the end. During her discussion of infrastructure building and government projects going back to Thomas Jefferson and FDR, she stated, "Why don't we spend on infrastructure (and healthcare) what we spend in Iraq?" As partisan as I am, I believe a fairly accurate conclusion one could draw from this remark was that she wanted to take the entire budget spent in Iraq (minus some addition of forces in Afghanistan) and spend it on domestic programs. This was clearly the implication of her remarks.
 
Preceding this statement, Ms. Pelosi had discussed healthcare and wanting to implement a national system which did not get a lot of applause in that largely Democratic audience, perhaps owing to the fact that some in the audience were the from the families of physicians and also that knowledge of Canadians coming to America for treatment is fairly well known in New York. Ms. Pelosi stated her belief in alternative programs, something that was not advocated in the original HillaryCare program, by stating "Think diet, not diabetes" and another slogan of "science, science, science."
 
That last statement about diabetes may look good on a bumper sticker, but someone should perhaps inform "Dr. Pelosi" that the millions of people suffering from diabetes can ill afford to treat their condition with diet alone. As for science finding a cure for all diabetes -- and all fuel/energy problems, perhaps all that may happen one day, but one has to deal with the present situation more so than investing in future sources. Her statement here on diabetes implies that government sponsored research -- and not any tax breaks for private research -- should be the main area of concentration.
 
When someone from the audience asked Speaker Pelosi about the short and long term effects of bringing the troops home from Iraq (which her inability to do she considers her "biggest failure"), she stated the previously mentioned "terrorism hadn't been there before" and that a US troop withdrawal "will bring stability to the region." I'm sure Iranian President Amadinjad would approve -- and see to that new "stability."
 
Up to this point, she had not mentioned the Surge, but in then discussing the death toll in Iraq, Pelosi said that 1100 servicepeople were killed since the Surge began. This was said in a tone as if those were large numbers in warfare. While I wouldn't want to knock on the door of a dead soldier's family and attempt to inform them that the loss of their loved one was "only a light casualty figure," these are small percentage figures compared to battle deaths in World War II or Vietnam. While I agree each death is a great loss, until the entire world changes in nature, "there will be wars and rumors of wars."
 
Ms. Pelosi, earlier in the talk, spoke of her first visit to the Bush White House as Democratic Whip (in 2002). She stated that President Bush was gracious, then made a condescending sound. And she mentioned that she envisioned all the early Suffragettes sitting in the chair with her, one telling her that women had "arrived at the table." "And then they were gone," Ms. Pelosi said. The audience appreciated these remarks of how far women have come in the legislative process in America.
 
At the beginning of her talk, Ms. Pelosi said that she saw her entry into politics, from volunteer to candidate as an extension of her role as a woman. "Public policy is an extension of taking care of children," she stated. While this statement has some validity in dealing with issues related to directly to children, there is a darker and condescending side to these words, namely that she considers everyone outside of Congress as a child that needs to be lead. I suspect that any number of voters are fully capable of managing both their personal and political affairs as well -- or better -- than Ms. Pelosi.
 
I didn't stay around for a book purchase and signing.
 
Jack

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:24 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 960 words, total size 6 kb.

Dana Mathewson:

And man, does he rip the Obamessiah to shreds!

This is long, and somewhat difficult because the promised font 
differences aren't there.  But it's worth the effort -- even if it 
DOES force you to read the speech.  No, you don't have to be able to 
read German -- it's in English.

http://tinyurl.com/5whzcm
--
A clean tie attracts the soup of the day. -- Paul Dickson

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Yep-it`s official; minorities are hardest hit by climate change, according to Reuters!

Here is what they`re claiming now:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American blacks are likely to suffer disproportionately from climate change and they are willing to pay to combat it, a commission aimed at raising awareness about global warming said on Tuesday.

More blacks also will be "fuel poor" as energy demand rises due to higher air-conditioning loads, population growth and urbanization, commission said.

End Excerpt

The idiot who wrote this piece, Deborah Zabarenko, illustrates the monstrous ignorance of the subject matter; she clearly doesn`t understand what the heat island effect is, doesn`t grasp that Global Warming has little bearing on it.  She doesn`t seem to understand that we have all the energy we need but that the energy poverty results from an unwillingness to use that energy by the very people telling us we have a crisis.

The story ends with a telephone survey on the attitudes of inner city blacks toward GW (???) 

This is one of the more stupid pieces I`ve seen in a long line of stupidity over the subject. It was edited by another drooling idiot named Bill Trott, by the way, so he deserves equal shame.

Hat tip to Mike W., who made the following comment:

Tim.I should have seen this coming from miles off.Today we are officially racist because of our global warming denial. Of course, what this article does not tell is the socialist side of the story. This goes beyond global warming and has to do with the haves and have nots.Tax the prosperous until they have nothing more to tax. Disrespect and hate all of those who strive to make a better life for themselves and actively seek out the means to do so.One look at the former USSR should tell the tale of how well this has worked but the blind will never see that which they refuse to see.So it comes down to be labeled a racist if you oppose the global warming hoax.God help us!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:09 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 3 kb.

Jack Kemp (not the politician) has discovered that at least one famous actor in Hollywood is upset with Barack Obama:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/28/voight/
 
VOIGHT: My concerns for America
Obama sowing socialist seeds in young people

Monday, July 28, 2008
OP-ED

We, as parents, are well aware of the importance of our teachers who teach and program our children. We also know how important it is for our children to play with good-thinking children growing up.

Sen. Barack Obama has grown up with the teaching of very angry, militant white and black people: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers and Rev. Michael Pfleger. We cannot say we are not affected by teachers who are militant and angry. We know too well that we become like them, and Mr. Obama will run this country in their mindset.

The Democratic Party, in its quest for power, has managed a propaganda campaign with subliminal messages, creating a God-like figure in a man who falls short in every way. It seems to me that if Mr. Obama wins the presidential election, then Messrs. Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers and Pfleger will gain power for their need to demoralize this country and help create a socialist America.

The Democrats have targeted young people, knowing how easy it is to bring forth whatever is needed to program their minds. I know this process well. I was caught up in the hysteria during the Vietnam era, which was brought about through Marxist propaganda underlying the so-called peace movement. The radicals of that era were successful in giving the communists power to bring forth the killing fields and slaughter 2.5 million people in Cambodia and South Vietnam. Did they stop the war, or did they bring the war to those innocent people? In the end, they turned their backs on all the horror and suffering they helped create and walked away.

Those same leaders who were in the streets in the '60s are very powerful today in their work to bring down the Iraq war and to attack our president, and they have found their way into our schools. William Ayers is a good example of that.

Thank God, today, we have a strong generation of young soldiers who know exactly who they are and what they must do to protect our freedom and our democracy. And we have the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, who has brought hope and stability to Iraq and prevented the terrorists from establishing a base in that country. Our soldiers are lifting us to an example of patriotism at a time when we've almost forgotten who we are and what is at stake.

If Mr. Obama had his way, he would have pulled our troops from Iraq years ago and initiated an unprecedented bloodbath, turning over that country to the barbarianism of our enemies. With what he has openly stated about his plans for our military, and his lack of understanding about the true nature of our enemies, there's not a cell in my body that can accept the idea that Mr. Obama can keep us safe from the terrorists around the world, and from Iran, which is making great strides toward getting the atomic bomb. And while a misleading portrait of Mr. Obama is being perpetrated by a media controlled by the Democrats, the Obama camp has sent out people to attack the greatness of Sen. John McCain, whose suffering and courage in a Hanoi prison camp is an American legend.

Gen. Wesley Clark, who himself has shame upon him, having been relieved of his command, has done their bidding and become a lying fool in his need to demean a fellow soldier and a true hero.

This is a perilous time, and more than ever, the world needs a united and strong America. If, God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way.

Jon Voight is an Academy Award-winning actor who is well-known for his humanitarian work.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:14 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 680 words, total size 4 kb.

By Dana Mathewson:

Warning!  Do not read this if:
1. You have a drink OF ANY KIND in your mouth
2. You have a tendency toward nausea when confronted with total idiocy
3. You do not suffer fools lightly

But then, none of you would read it at all.  Just don't say I didn't warn ya!

http://tinyurl.com/6fgjsm
--
A clean tie attracts the soup of the day. -- Paul Dickson

Here is just a brief slurp:

Earlier, an NPR editor asked panelists whether it was appropriate for journalists to clap for Obama -- and the question uncorked a mounting frustration among many black reporters.

But no respectable journalist wants to be viewed as a "lapdog" instead of a "watchdog."

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Wesley J. Smith has more on the Great Ape Project, the ambition to grant the apes personhood. Bioethicist Peter Singer, creator of the animal rights movement, wants to dethrone humanity from the special seat we have occupied as children of God, making us just one more animal in a group.  His argument is that personhood is dependent on self-awareness, and that this places many animals-apes, elephants, dolfins, etc. into that special category. 

From the article:

Personhood status would be earned by possessing minimal cognitive capacities such as being self aware over time. This means, Singer wrote in Practical Ethics, that "some members of other species are persons: some members of our own species are not." The latter category includes the unborn, infants, people with catastrophic cognitive impairments.

As just one example, Singer argues that infanticide is acceptable because babies are not persons. Thus, writing again in Practical Ethics, Singer stated that parents should be allowed to kill a baby with hemophilia if they believed that doing so "would lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life."
End Excerpt

and here are some of the consequences of this particular naturalist worldview:

* Eugenic infanticide has become almost common in the Netherlands, with two studies in the Lancet revealing that 8% of all infants who die there are killed by doctors-about 90 such murders per year, all with the support of the Dutch Medical Association.

In the world that would rise from the ashes of human exceptionalism in which we would be viewed as just another ape in the forest, an individual's value would be subjective and rights temporary, depending on the extent of each animal's individual capacities at the time of measuring.
End Excerpt

Of course, once the concept of personhood is redefined, it can be redefined all the more; that is exactly what the Nazis did with the ``inferior breeds`` after all.  Eugenics promoted the Nordic ``race`` over the ``Mediterranean`` types because the Eugenicists in America and later in Europe decided that the darker peoples were subhuman, that their ``germ plasma`` was tainted with criminality, madness, feeblemindedness, epilepsy.  Eugenicists in America-actually, psychologist  Henry Goddard-coined the term MORON to describe the subhuman character of these unfit types, and it became a duty to eliminate the morons from our breeding pool.  It was attempted in America with forced sterilizations and ``sequestering``, in Germany it was attempted with forced labor camps, death camps, gas chambers and human ovens.  It started with a redefinition of what it means to be human.

So, now Pete Singer and other materialists want to backdoor Eugenics by downgrading Humanity to mere animal status.  Once that principle is established, then intelligent design of humans, the use of traditional animal breeding techniques, becomes inevitable. 

Morals aside, the argument of the Sorcerer`s Apprentice should give us pause; we do not know how to control our brooms.  Do WE know what is fit or unfit?  What surprised will nature throw at us?  There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the disappearance of the rainforests, because we may be loosing cures for cancer or somesuch and not know it, yet the same people who worry about such things are often gung-ho on the notion that we can breed people like horses.  What more do we lose by voluntarily removing genetic diversity from our populace? What vigor is lost, vigor we may need to fight some mutant disease? What great intellectual gifts will be lost, gifts we didn`t believe the ``lesser breed`` possessed?  Sickle-cell anemia may kill those with the sickle-cell trait, but Malaria would have taken a lot more; the illness is an unfortunatel byproduct of a trait that is beneficial. How many traits would we foolishly remove, thinking them unimportant?  We simply do not understand the complexity.

That argument can be made from an entirely materialistic perspective. But the real point of contention is moral and spiritual; are we merely chunks of meat, what the south sea cannibals called Longpig?  If all we are is meat with minds, then our minds are the only source of our worth.  The weak, the helpless, the poor, elderly, are all subject to the oppression of the self-styled intelligent, the godlike masters.  What those who seek to rule decide is fit is what will be selected as beneficial for survival.  If Man is not a spiritual being then he is no more than an object, something to be used for the convenience or pleasure of the powerful. 

At first glance, Peter Singer seems to be elevating others rather than tearing down, but that elevation is at the expense of the dignity of Man.  His elevation is intended to reduce Man to the same state as the beasts. As I have stated previously, if Man is but a beast we should not be surprised when he acts like one.  If Darwin is correct, if Richard Dawkins is right about the ``selfish gene`` then humanity is doomed to behave in violent, self-centered ways.  It`s natural to kill when angry, have sex when aroused, eat and drink as one sees fit, to steal.  The Judeo-Christian ideal, the struggle against Sin, is but a struggle against the beast within.  Modern philosophy teaches that the beast is all, and that we should free him. 

Do we really want our children behaving like Baboons?  Many of them already are...

A world of animal passion must be governed as Man has traditionally governed animals; through force, oppression, and slaughter. If we are to set our inner beast free, we should expect a totalitarian society, because it will be the only way to keep order. 

Ah, but there is always Eugenics to clean up the race!  But if the Eugenicists are themselves beasts, they will simply make the race more bestial, making themselves more beastial in the process...

There is the conundrum; in elevating animals because of ``self awareness`` we dehumanize humanity, leading to a downward spiral of perversity, brutishness, and bad behavior.  This in turn leads to a draconian imposition of force to correct the problem, leading to more brutishness.  Does anybody believe the Russians were a morally elevated people after the oppression of Marx?  No, Russians have one of the worst alcoholism rates in the world, one of the highest abortion rates, rampant promiscuity, rampant crime.  Why?  Because the barriers of morality were broken by the society they lived in, the materialism of the communists have turned their selfish genes loose. 

If we wish to build a prison, we should continue in this vein; giving rights to animals is a large step toward incarcerating humanity in a materialistic penitentiary.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1244 words, total size 8 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

The Russians have been engaging in cyber-attacks on foreign countries, according to this article.

Here is a snippet:

Russia’s most recent cyber attacks successfully attacking Estonia, Lithuania and now Georgia, all share a common motivation despite that these attacks are executed from different parties, with Estonia still remaining the only coordinated attempt to attack a country’s Internet infrastructure next to Lithuania and Georgia’s lone gunman attacks.

The DDoS against Georgia President’s web site appears to be using a well known Russian malware variant from the Pinch family — whose authors got arrested after operating for several years online in 2007 — next to a command and control bot ( MachBot controller) primarily known to be popular in Eastern Europe, and including messages in the flood packets like ``win+love+in+Rusia``, speak for itself. It’s also interesting that despite that they’ve dedicated a new command and control server to be used specifically for this DDoS attack, one that haven’t been seen in any third-party attacks, they made a small mistake further confirming the attacks has been launched by well known Russian botnet masters. Their mistake? Having the malware phone back to a well-known command and control seen in a great number of previous attacks, sharing DNS servers with a provider of DDoS attacks on demand, which despite announcing on its site that is no longer in business, continues offering botnets for rent services.

Russia’s politically motivated, or perhaps politically tolerated attacks, are all the result of Russia’s IT underground self-mobilization, feeling obliged to sent out a signal that they’re in fact actively participating in the political life and monitoring everything. Moreover, nationalistic articles in Russian newspapers often further fuel the tensions and literally seek involvement from Russian hackers, so even when they speculate about non-existent hacker discussions on coordinated attacks against a particular country, such discussions actually start taking place and the result has been pretty evident ever since.

End Excerpt

America has been subject to cyber attacks from the Chinese, and it appears the Russians are engaging in similar behavior with former Soviet states.  This is cause for concern; all of our technology is computer-based, and one wonders if a super-virus can be developed, a sort of computer pandemic used by a hostile nation. 

I`ve always warned that we are falling into a trap of overspecialization, that our economy and way of life is becoming too dependent on semiconductors and computers.  If someone-say the Chinese-were to crash our computers across the country, the effects would be as bad as a nuclear strike.  We would be largely defenseless, our economy in ruins, and our status as world leader would be finished.  That is why these little forays by the Russians scare me; Russia has a grudge to settle against us. 

The most complex and specialized our civilization becomes, the more likely it is that someone with evil intent can find a vulnerability. We must remain ever vigilant.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:41 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

Jack Kemp

There's an old joke about Lyndon Johnson that I'll recycle here with Obama.
 
Hillary, John Edwards and Obama are talking just before one of their debates.
 
Hillary says, "I had a dream last night where God came to me and said I will be the next president."
 
Edwards then says, "I had the same dream, but God told ME I would be the next president."
 
Obama then adds, "I had the very same dream last night and I don't remember telling either of you that you would be the next president!"
 
Jack

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

The Federalist Patriot delivers Barack Obama`s own words on the Surge:

January 2007 ``And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don’t know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.``

July 2007 ``Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, ‘Well, even in September, we’re going to need more time.’ So we’re going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president’s plan... My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.``

September 2007 ``After putting an additional 30,000 troops in... we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we’re back where we were 15 months ago... It is a course that will not succeed.``

January 2008 ``I had no doubt, and I said when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation and we would see a reduction in the violence.``

Now: ``What I said was even at the time of the debate of the surge, was if you put 30,000 troops in, of course it’s going to have an impact. There’s no doubt about that.``

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

A couple of years ago I wrote a piece on the dangers of North Korean missiles, particularly about the possibility of an atmospheric explosion producing a large Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP).  I took a lot of heat, because too many people do not believe this can happen.  I understand that the Starfish tests (the U.S. tested the EMP effect in Hawaii back in 1962 used thermonuclear devices, and the Koreans do not have those yet. My points were that: 1.Just because they can`t build their own doesn`t mean they can`t get them-especially since China has ultimately been backing them. Where have all the old Soviet Nukes gone? 2.There is no reason to believe that it`s not possible to generate an EMP with a fission bomb; they can do it today without nukes at all, albeit to a lesser degree. Given what we`ve learned, it seems likely that the brute-force approach used by Starfish may not be necessary. 3. The improvement of N. Korean missiles makes this a serious danger.

For example, a Source Region Electromagnetic Pulse (SREMP) is actually more efficient than the High Electromagnetic Pulse (Hemp) using a 20 kiloton bruiser detonated in the upper atmosphere, albeit it`s effects are more localized.  A North Korean missile would likely be a SREMP in California:

Within the source region, peak electric fields greater than 10 5 V/m and peak magnetic fields greater than 4,000 A/m can exist. These are much larger than those from HEMP and pose a considerable threat to military or civilian systems in the affected region. The ground is also a conductor of electricity and provides a return path for electrons at the outer part of the deposition region toward the burst point. Positive ions, which travel shorter distances than electrons and at lower velocities, remain behind and recombine with the electrons returning through the ground. Thus, strong magnetic fields are produced in the region of ground zero. When the nuclear detonation occurs near to the ground, the SREMP target may not be located in the electromagnetic far field but may instead lie within the electro-magnetic induction region. In this regime the electric and magnetic fields of the radiation are no longer perpendicular to one another, and many of the analytic tools with which we understand EM coupling in the simple plane-wave case no longer apply. The radiated EM field falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the deposition region (near to the currents the EMP does not appear to come from a point source). 
End Excerpt

It should also be pointed out that fission bombs actually make better EMP weapons, because the thick outer casing of thermonuclear devices tend to dampen gamma rays and the fusion reaction tends to pre-ionize the atmosphere, causing the EMP to peter out.

Note the following paragraph from this Scientific American article:

The size of the emitting region depends on the altitude and yield of the nuclear burst. For a one-megaton explosion at 200 kilometers in altitude, the diameter is about 600 kilometers, Papadopoulos states. The high-altitude EMP can create electric potentials that can exceed 1,000 volts--enough to cripple any sensitive electrical infrastructure on the ground that is within direct line of sight. At orbital elevations, EMP fields are small and generally cause little interference, he adds.
End Excerpt

I think we have established that the current weapons possessed by North Korea are adequate to cause mayhem, and their technological progress is reaching the point where they may be able to deliver this ``gift`` to America.

World Net Daily has a piece about just this very thing; consider this:

The report, published on the commission website, cited other scenarios that should be expected to develop subsequent to an EMP attack on the U.S.

"Consequently, numerous pumps and overhead fin-fan coolers tripped repeatedly, resulting in the main crude column pressure safety valves lifting and major upsets in the process units in other refinery units  There was an explosion in the FCC unit and a number of isolated fires. As a result of this incident, an estimated 10 percent of the total refining capacity in the United Kingdom was lost until this complex was returned to service."
 
End Excerpt

An EMP attack would be politically devastating, because we would be very hard pressed to justify a nuclear strike on suspected perpetrators.  They didn`t actually kill people, just damaged property, and the forces of pacifism would demand we stay our hand.  As I called it in my AT piece, it would be the Unfought Victory.

We need to keep this in mind; this is a very real scenario, one that would be very difficult to handle.  I seriously doubt a President Obama would be capable of dealing with it.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 871 words, total size 6 kb.

Mike W. forwards this outstanding piece courtesy of GM Roper:

''You had these opportunities, America. You didn't do anything,'' FBI agent George Crouch Jr. testified Friday at Salim Hamdan's war crimes trial.

Via Bruce Kessler
 
Steve Shippert, of ThreatsWatch.org just sent this email out on a small email ring of bloggers.  It is simply and truly incredibly important, and eloquent.  I beseech every blogger to post it on their blog.  If all do, it will redound widely, and be widely heard, as it must be, if we care for our nation, our children's future, everything we value in life and liberty.  This must get out.  It can really shape the debate in this country, and sway many.  In every election, there is a moment when it happens, and Shippert's message is that moment.
PLEASE, everybody post this message in their blog, without delay.  Our combined voice will echo and reverberate and have major effect, if done all together and all at once.
Thank you,
Bruce Kesler
 
 
The message was, ''You had these opportunities, America. You didn't do anything,'' FBI agent George Crouch Jr. testified Friday at Salim Hamdan's war crimes trial.

The United States could have killed bin Laden in Khartoum, Sudan, before he moved to Afghanistan in 1996, Hamdan told his interrogators. They could have killed him after al Qaida's 1998 twin bombings at the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Or after the October 2000 suicide bombing of the USS Cole, at the port of Aden in Yemen, which left 17 U.S. sailors dead.

Instead, ''Bin Laden was emboldened.'' So he struck with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, leaving nearly 3,000 dead.

It is bitter irony that lawyers are conveying such through a trial.  Remote controlled Tomahawks, the illusion of safety beyond the sanctuary of oceans, and the hot pursuit via attorneys and law both remote and unrecognized by murderous men who seek our death.  This was how we convinced ourselves of our certain and active defense.

We were offered bin Laden in transit from Sudan to Afghanistan.  But we did not want him. Our lawyers had no battle, our leaders no mettle.

Most of us, though not all, have learned nothing.  After thousands smote and seven years of war, we are back to our superior ways, demanding Habeas Corpus and noting in the very first trial that bin Laden's deputy was read no Miranda rights upon his capture - or was it arrest?

They say History repeats itself.  Never before has it applied so swiftly, within the same generation and within the same conflict.

A selfish society incapable of sacrifice is equally incapable of self-defense.  Our greatest concern is not the pursuit of madmen or the states which feed them.  It is not even the cost of oil and its affect on our economy and future.  It is the cost of the gasoline that cycles through our tanks and its affect on our personal checking account balances.

Cowardice, cloaked in arrogance and concealed behind self-assured brilliance, charts a troubled path; one which appears circular, where constant motion deceptively passes for progress.  Progress towards what, we disagree,  though our enemies do not, as they laugh.

Many say it will take another catastrophic attack to bring us to our collective senses.  But it will likely not come.  For, if al-Qaeda (et al) is smart - and they are - they will leave us alone on our own soil while we rip ourselves apart.  No explosives, no bombs, no weapons of war required.  We are, after all, suddenly and finally waging their centuries-long war upon ourselves.  Brilliantly.

We allow ourselves to be told that we are what is wrong with the world; torturous, greedy, destructive, with disregard for the poorest and bitter intolerance for anyone not like us. We Balkanize our society and point fingers at each other, laying these same charges against one domestic group or another with the venom and aggression once reserved for distant, oppressive enemies.

Can we awaken from our own self-destructive slumber?  The decisive war is not in Iraq, nor Afghanistan, nor Pakistan or any other distant place where we perceive our enemies to be.  The decisive battle is right here, from Maine to San Diego, from St. Louis to Atlanta.

If we are incapable of rediscovering that which Constitutes us and what distinguishes America form every other nation on this planet, and acknowledging that America, her people, our liberty and our unequaled charity are indeed good and our values just, then what does Iraq or Afghanistan matter?

Can we truly identify that which we are defending?  For if we cannot, we are not.  We are simply preserving soil and borders, protecting cities and people - that which can be found anywhere else on this planet.

What will America be, what will she look like when our children are thrust at the helm?  Will they write that we defended her, or will they write that we devoured and discarded her?  This, not al-Qaeda or the War on Terror, keeps me up at night.

For we can defeat al-Qaeda and yet have defended nothing at all in the long, painful process.  And our children will be compelled to write of us, ''You had these opportunities, America. You didn't do anything."

SteveSteve Schippert
http://ThreatsWatch.org/
http://tank.nationalreview.com/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 884 words, total size 6 kb.

Jack Kemp (not the politician):

This from Rich Lowery:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07252008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/what_he_can_steal_from_hill_121430.htm

WHAT HE CAN STEAL FROM HILL
Rich Lowry

Posted: 3:23 am
July 25, 2008

POLITICALLY, John McCain should be a candidate for in voluntary committal - he's a danger to himself.

If McCain's going to have a chance, he needs to run an un-McCain-like campaign, more negative than he'd prefer, more focused on domestic policy and less freewheeling: Think of Hillary Clinton in this year's Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries.

He'd surely be more comfortable running a race emphasizing character, national security and a few pet causes such as earmarks. But he has to leave his comfort zone.

Yet McCain may resist that - because he labors under an outdated self-image. He often seems to think of himself as he was back in 2000: a political phenomenon who was the fresh face on the national scene, beloved of the press. A conspiracy of circumstances (most important, the passage of time) has seen all his former star qualities (and then some) assumed by Barack Obama.

If this hadn't yet occurred to McCain, Obama's overseas trip - with all three network anchors slavishly in tow - should've brought it home good and hard. McCain's campaign was reduced to running a Web video spoofing the media's love for Obama, echoing a plaint once made about the sycophantic coverage of McCain.

But McCain still insists on bantering with the press in sessions that recall the glory days of the "Straight Talk Express" eight years ago, even though he often distracts from his campaign's own message. His campaign can't afford such ramshackle self-indulgence in these, the most trying of circumstances for any Republican.

A McCain comeback has to begin in a deconstruction of Obama as too risky to be president, executed in a traditional, block-and-tackle campaign (of the sort McCain has never yet been able to run). The playbook is partly provided by Hillary Clinton, who found her voice in lunch-bucket appeals to working-class white and Hispanic voters.

Of course, she didn't defeat Obama - but McCain ought to be encouraged by how close she came.

For a contemporary Democrat, she ran a center-right campaign; she talked of blowing Iran to smithereens, downed shots of Crown Royal and appealed frankly to blue-collar whites. These gestures conveyed a sense of toughness that endeared Hillary to her working-class voters and highlighted a vulnerability of the polished but aloof Obama.

McCain has a higher natural toughness quotient than Hillary. But he has never spoken persuasively to economic concerns, which - for all the focus on the Middle East - will predominate this year. As Obama dazzled overseas, McCain's campaign made a feint toward frontally engaging him in the economic debate, hitting him with a negative ad on his opposition to domestic drilling.

It's necessary, but not enough, to take such shots at Obama. McCain's campaign needs a unifying theme, and one less abstract than "country first." Here again, he should take a page from Clinton, offering a conservative version of her theme of a "fighter for you." In particular, he should be fighting for middle-class Americans against ineffectual government and tax-and-spend liberalism.

McCain has to give voice to the public's anger and frustration. He has to complain that Washington is broken and argue that both parties have let voters down. In 2000, he was the feisty - even angry - crusader against Washington and the status quo. He needs to recover that old populist mojo.

The fighter theme would tap into the public mood of disenchantment with Washington and politics. It would suit McCain, who is at his best when expressing an outraged irascibility. It would be in keeping with an aggressive anti-Obama campaign. And it would communicate a certain vigor, perhaps mitigating concerns about his age.

But it must be harnessed in a tight, hard-hitting campaign uncharacteristic of McCain. This year, simply letting McCain be McCain is a formula for failure.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 655 words, total size 4 kb.

Jack Kemp makes the following observation about Obama and the racism issue:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the_racism_cry_returns.html

Michelle Obama said of the Republicans that "where another four or eight years of the world as it is will devastate the life of some child."

Let me translate that for you. Michelle was essentially saying that if you elect the Republicans in 2008, they will use the blood of our children for Easter egg dye and to make Passover matzos, but said in "politer" rhetoric.

End

Here is the piece Jack posted on the matter a while back:

Michelle Obama, Racist with a Blood Libel

Recently Michelle Obama made this outrageous statement:http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/22/michelleo-if-you-dont-elect-the-one-children-will-be-endangered/

…”I wish we had time to be divided. I wish we had time to be upset. To be angry. To be disappointed. I wish we did,” Obama said. “Because if we had time for that, then things wouldn’t be so bad right now. Instead, we’re in a place where another four or eight years of the world as it is will devastate the life of some child.”

END OF QUOTE

Let me translate that for you. Michelle is essentially saying that if you elect the Republicans, they will use the blood of our children for Easter egg dye and to make Passover matzos, but in "politer" rhetoric.

Invoking "The Children" is a classic demagogic device to attempt to stifle all debate. What specifically will the Republicans do to threaten the lives of children? Pass legislation to ban drilling for sources of heating oil, so the children will freeze? Pass legislation to give away mortgage money to people who can't pay it back and then request (along with Treasury Secretary Paulson) that all of us be impoverished to MAYBE pay for a bailout of those loans?

We await the specific details of Michelle Obama's accusations -- as we await the REAL Messiah.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:07 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

My friend 7lb. Dave sent this to me:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/2447895/Islamic-Bugs-Bunny-programme-spreads-extremism.html

Islamic 'Bugs Bunny' programme 'spreads extremism'
An Islamic television station is using a Bugs Bunny lookalike in a programme for children, who vote whether to chop off his hands when he breaches Sharia law.

 
Last Updated: 6:31PM BST 23 Jul 2008
 
Palestinian children's show Tomorrow's Pioneers with Assud, the Jew-eating rabbit

Assud the rabbit vows to "kill and eat Jews" and glorifies the maiming of "infidels" on the Palestinian children's show Tomorrow's Pioneers.
In one episode, Assud admits stealing money and is seen begging for mercy after young viewers and parents phone in demanding to cut off his hands as punishment.

At that point, Saraa, the 11-year-old presenter, intervenes and rules that the bunny should only have his ears severed because he has repented.

The rabbit, played by a costumed actor, is one of the main characters on the show broadcast in Gaza by the al-Aqsa channel, which is otherwise known as Hamas TV.

Religious leaders in Britain, where the channel can be viewed via satellite, criticised the programme, amid fears British children could be affected by the radical Islamic message.

The Association of Muslim Schools, which represents Britain's 143 Muslim schools, said it was opposed to any shows that incite violence.
Dr Mohamed Mukadam, the association's spokesman, said: "It goes without saying that any programme which promotes the killing or injuring of human beings is wrong.

"Regardless of religion, shows that incite or inspire others to inflict violence of any kind should be condemned.
"Such shows are against the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed, and we would urge people of all ages not to watch them."

Set up as a regional station prior to the Palestinian elections in January 2006, the al-Aqsa channel now airs on a satellite slot and has a substantial following across the Arab world.

Tomorrow's Pioneers was first aired in April 2007, and features young host Saraa Barhoum and her co-host, a large costumed animal.
The show originally featured a character called Farfur who resembled Mickey Mouse and urged children to fight against the Jewish community and form a world Islamic state.

Farfur was later replaced by a bumble bee called Nahoul, who told viewers to "follow the path of Islam, of martyrdom and of the Mujahideen".

He was 'martyred' earlier this year and replaced by Assud, who tells children in his first episode: "I, Assud, will get rid of the Jews, Allah willing, and I will eat them up."
In a discussion with 11-year-old host Saraa Barhoum, the young viewers are referred to as 'soldiers'.

Assud asks Saraa: "We are all martyrdom-seekers, are we not?"
"Yes, we are all ready to sacrifice ourselves for the sake of our homeland," she replies.

The phone-in show accepts calls from children as young as nine on topics about life in Palestine.
In an episode aired on July 11, Assud is seduced by Satan into stealing money from his father - an offence forbidden in Sharia law.
Host Saraa is then seen asking the studio audience what the rabbit's punishment should be.

Viewers, including parents and children, phoned in demanding that his hands should be severed to teach him a lesson.
After taking several calls, Saraa asks the children: "Do you think we should go ahead and chop off Assud's hand now?"
The terrified rabbit slumps to his knees and pleads: "No, no Saraa, I'm begging you."

In the end, Saraa - acting as judge and jury - rules that his ear should be cut off instead, but this was not shown on the programme.
During an episode aired in February, Assud vows to kill and eat all Danish people over the cartoon images of the Prophet Mohammed which appeared in Danish newspapers.

He pledges to assassinate the illustrator and Saraa also agrees that she would martyr herself for the cause of Palestine.
Saraa, who has seven brothers and sisters, was invited to host the show after entering a singing competition.
Last year she defended the programme, insisting it was not responsible for spreading extremism.

She said: "We are not terrorists. We do not support terrorism. We are normal people, but we are defending our homeland.

"The Israelis hit next door to my house with a shell. I was wounded on my feet and my little brother Youssef was wounded in the legs.
"We, as Muslims, are against suicide bombers. We are against the death of civilians on all sides. We are only the enemy of those who took our land and kill us every day."

The show is regularly translated and posted online by The Middle East Media Research Institute, an independent media monitoring group based in the United States.

The al-Aqsa channel was unavailable for comment.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 803 words, total size 5 kb.

This from Mike W.:

Tim, The article I sent you yesterday is exemplified by this article again found at Gateway Pundit. A man who wants to give 845 billion to the UN to fight poverty will not even give a penny to assist a school in Kenya that is named after him.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23520981-details/Barack+Obama%27s+broken+promise+to+African+village/article.do

And to think this came from a newspaper in the UK. If our media was not so star struck with tingling legs they should have been all over this.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:46 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

I was just watching Fox News Sunday, and Missouri Senator and possible veep for Obama Claire McCaskill was debating Republican Senator John Thune.  She was asked why Obama could not admit the success of the Surge, and she pulled out the talking point that the ``Anbar Awakening`` had begun before the Surge and that Bush got lucky; the Iraqis were already working themselves to improve things. I realize politics is about coloring the truth, but this is an astounding lie that the Democrats have been getting away with.  Even Thune let this go-something he should not have done.

I quote from Think Progress:

Also ``breathtaking``, but unmentioned by Petraeus, is the fact that with 200 people killed in the first week of June, sectarian violence is on the rise in Iraq.

We do think that we can make a big difference in the security situation in Iraq. We hope to consolidate and build on what is happening in Anbar province. We hope to stabilize Dialya, to stabilize some of the networks in Baghdad, and to take away some of the sanctuaries around Baghdad that al Qaeda has used for some time.

End Excerpt

So, the Liberals weren`t satisfied with Petraeus` comment that things were improving just because they were getting better in Anbar. Remember, this was before Petraeus became Commander in Iraq.  In short, the Anbar Awakening happened on HIS watch, as a result of HIS tactics-the same tactics he would use with the Surge. 

This is critical to understand; the Surge was not just the addition of more troops, but a fundamental change in tactics.  Petraeus wrote the book on counterinsurgency, and what he did first in Anbar was to have the military take a more active, aggressive role.  The original idea was to ``minimize our footprint`` so as not to anger Iraqis, not to emphasize that they were an occupied people. This allowed Al-Qaeda to run wild; our forces sat around inside firebases, venturing forth AFTER an attack.  Petraeus implemented a strategy emphasizing security; our men patrolled the streets, prepared to act immediately against an aggressor and to draw their fire.  We became friendly with the locals, assured them that we were there to protect them.  Anybody who has dealt with street crime knows this is vital to cleaning up a gang-riddled neighborhood; the citizens won`t talk if they fear reprisals, but if they have confidence the police can protect them they`ll actively cooperate to run the criminals off.  The Surge was really a common-sense approach.

And that approach was all David Petraeus, and that is why he got the job of Supreme Commander.

The Petraeus strategy was implemented in Anbar well before the troop surge.

Historian Frederick W. Kagan had this to say about the ``Anbar Awakening happened independently of the Surge`` line:

Anbar and the Surge
The tribal leaders in Anbar began to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq last year, largely due to unspeakable atrocities committed by the terrorists against their own hosts. Many analysts and observers have seized upon this fact to argue that the movement in Anbar had nothing to do with the surge, began before the surge did, and would continue even without the surge. This argument is invalid. Anbari tribal leaders did begin to turn against AQI in their areas last year before the surge began, but not before Colonel Sean MacFarland began to apply in Ramadi the tactics and techniques that are the basis of the current strategy in Baghdad. His soldiers and Marines fought tenaciously to establish a foothold in Anbar’s capital, which was then a terrorist stronghold, and thereby demonstrated to the local leaders that they could count on American support as they began to fight their erstwhile allies. Even so, the movement proceeded slowly and fitfully for most of 2006 and, indeed, into 2007. But when Colonel John Charlton’s brigade relieved MacFarland’s in Ramadi and was joined by two additional Marine battalions (part of the surge) elsewhere in Anbar, the ``awakening`` began to accelerate very rapidly. At the start of 2007 there were only a handful of Anbaris in the local security forces. By the summer there were over 14,000. Before the surge, Ramadi was one of the most dangerous cities in Iraq; now it is possible for Americans to walk through its market with limited security details and without body armor. David Kilcullen describes the relationship between the surge and the movement very well in his Small Wars Journal posting, and I have also addressed the issue in detail in a recent Weekly Standard article . The fact is that neither the surge nor the turn of the tribal leaders would in itself have been enough to turn Anbar around  both were necessary, and will remain so for some time.
End Excerpt

So, the Anbar Council saw the writing on the wall, and the U.S. forces in Anbar were aggressively attacking Al-Qaeda well before the full measure of the Surge was implemented.

Which brings us back to McCaskill and the other Democrats using this arguement; if the Anbar Awakening was improving security in the region, why did they allow the Administration to ``mess it up`` with the Surge?

Here is what Senator McCaskill had to say about Iraq on Meet the Press October 8, 2006:

Iraq is a mess. We can either stay the course or we can change course. Obviously, even the leader of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Warner, probably the most respected Republican on the Iraq war in Washington, has now come back from Iraq & said, "You know what? This is a mess and we need to re-examine what we're doing here." This is Truman's Senate seat. When he was in the Senate, during the war, he asked questions about war profiteering and he was called brave. In this climate right now, they would war, where we are losing lives every day and innocent Iraqi lives; and then our effort worldwide to begin to be effective against terror. Terrorist cells are popping up. We're creating more terrorists around the world with this failed policy in Iraq.
End Transcript

So, the ``Anbar Awakening`` started independently of the Surge, and our policy merely buttressed what the Iraqi people were doing?  The good Senator didn`t think so back in `06. Nay, she demanded a change in tactics, since the ones in operation were causing us to ``lose lives every day and innocent Iraqi lives``. Iraq was, in her estimation ``a mess``. Strange how malleable are her opinions.

But she`s not the only Democrat to claim the Surge was a foolish idea:

"We should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home." 
-Joe Biden

"What makes you possibly think that anything further like this is going to produce the results that anybody else has failed to do?"
-Christopher Dodd

"We are sending our troops where they are not wanted, with no end in sight, in the middle of a civil war, in the middle of the mother of all mistakes."
-Barbera Boxer

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had this to say in a letter to the President:

"We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq.  There is only a political solution."

"Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror."
End Excerpt

There is no indication that the Democrats believed Iraq was improving on it`s own.  On the contrary, they believed it was a quagmire, an unwinnable war in which America was hated and could offer no assistance to a people hell-bent on killing one another.  If the Anbar Awakening was a factor, they would have mentioned it at some point; they didn`t.

On Jan. 16 of `06 RINO Chuck Hagel and Democrat Karl Levin introduced a NON-BINDING resolution which stated:

``It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq.``

Why? If security was improving, it would certainly do no harm to our troops.  It is the non-binding nature of what the Democrats (and RINO Republicans) introduced that should tip us off; they did not want to be tarred with defeat. If their reason for opposing a deepening military involvement was because things were going good, they certainly never made that case publicly. 

So, Claire McCaskill and her friends in Congress either never believed things were improving, or they did and lied about it for political gain. 

This has been one of the few areas where Barack Obama has been consistent-consistently wrong.  THAT is why he denies the reality of success; he knows this is a terrible liability if the public should remember his egregious policy failure.  Trying to change the facts to fit his stupidity is not going to fly-provided everyone remember exactly what was happening before the Surge.  People criticize Bush for being stubborn and unwilling to admit error, yet he fired Rumsfeld and made a drastic change in tactics when his original plan for limited ``footprint`` failed.  Obama is unwilling to even admit the Surge worked.

What will happen when his ``engagement`` policies fail, and Iran blackmails us with nuclear weapons?  Will he insist that we stay the course, continue talking while our cities burn?

Can we afford such a vain individual as President?

Oh, by the by, Claire McCaskill once said;

"it would be irresponsible for a Commander in Chief to set in stone a date."

Now she`s saying otherwise.  I hope Obama picks her; she will be a liability to him.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1798 words, total size 12 kb.