Sarah Palin On O'Reilly

Not my favorite host by any means,but here he grills Governor Palin on foreign policy issues and you can tell she's doing her homework.

On some of the questions,( particularly on the question about Israel bombing Iran) O'Reilly delves into the hypothetical and I would have liked to have seen Governor Palin respond by simply telling him that it was a totally hypothetical situation and that her reaction would be based on realities and conditions existing at that time. A bit of a hedge, but a valid one.

All in all,I give her a B+ here..a markedly higher grade than the present occupant of the White House.

Oh, And Senator Landrieu Is A Smarter Hooker Than I Thought..

When I originally found out that Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana sold her vote yesterday for a measly $100 mill bribe of your tax dollars in special federal aid from the White House, I referred to her as setting her price too early, like a low ball Vegas hooker. And I mentioned that if she was really together, she would hold out until the last minute for a higher price.

Well, I stand corrected. She did exactly that and got her White House John - er- Barack to shell out $300 mill of our money for her performance.

Of course, like Ben Nelson ,Blanche Lincoln and a few others, she let it be known that her vote today was not to be construed as a vote for the final bill.

In the trade, I believe that additional acts not covered in the initial arrangement between a business girl and her client are known as 'extras', and they always cost more.

I have no doubt that Senator Landrieu willbe able to get some more money out of the Obama Administration when the time comes.

Oh, and as Michelle Malkin reveals, plenty of your money is earmarked for a lot of interesting people inside the bill itself...

Cloture Passes On ObamaCare, 60-39

And yes, the Democrats were united in bringing this monstrosity to the floor for debate.

It was entirely a straight party line vote. Ohio Republican George Voinivich decided to miss the vote, but in the end it affected nothing.

This vote is simply a motion to proceed with debate, amendments, etc. on the floor. It could go on for quite some time. Tom Coburn (r-OK), for instance wants the Senate clerk to read every word of the 2,000 page bill on the Senate floor,although that probably won't happen.And Senator Lieberman, who owes the Democrats absolutely nothing at this point has pledged a filibuster.

There will be another cloture vote after all this, to end debate and vote onthe bil itself,and we may see a few Dems defect.

Although once again, I want to emphasize that the White House and Harry Reid have already said that they if they can't get the votes in the Senate, they will shove ObamaCare through by a fraudulent use of the reconciliation process ( it's supposed to be used for emergency budget matters only), locking the GOP out of the room and putting together whatever they want with Pelosi and her 'droids in the House.

Well and good,if it's comes to that. Let's force the bastards to foist this on the American people. And reap the inevitable fallout.

On the bright side, while a lot of federal money will be wasted and further damage done to the economy, most of this garbage can be repealed because th eimplementation doesn't take effect until 2013.

Dems Try shoving ObamaCare Through - And Sen. Landrieu May Be That Kind of Girl

The push is on for the first cloture vote on Obama Care in the 2,000 page bill in the US Senate, scheduled for Saturday night by Dem. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

He'll need all 60 Democrat votes to pass it which means the bill is allowed on to the floor for the debate phase.

The key arm twisting is focused on Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska,Evan Bayh of Indiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

In Landrieu's case, she appears to have established her price as inefficiently as a low ball Vegas hooker - $100 mil in Federal giveaways of other people's money to love Obamacare long time. She probably could have gotten even more if she'd held out another day...

Lincoln's case is very dicey. She basically faces a choice between voting for ObamaCare or being re-elected.

Bayh and Nelson both come from states that have an electorate that hates the idea of government run ObamaCare, but they're also well established incumbents, so we'll see.

It might be nice if all four of these senators heard from a few million of the American people today...call,baby call.

The Council Has Spoken- The Affirmative Action President And a Detainee Circus

Another week has passed, and the Council has spoken!

In the Council category, the winner this week was Bookworm Room with The Perils Of An Affirmative Action President:

My argument is that Barack Obama is one of the number of useless, mediocre people who, thanks to affirmative action, have been elevated to a position far above their natural abilities. The absence of grades is not the only indication of Obama’s intellectual weakness. (And believe me, if his grades were good, they’d be published in every paper in America, including the want ads.)

Everything Obama’s turned his hand to — except for using people to advance his career — has failed. The Annenberg Challenge was a $100 million disaster. His legal career was, to say that least, undistinguished. (I should add here that junior associates always have undistinguished careers. There’s just not that much scope there.) His tenure as an Illinois State Senator was marked by dithering indecision, coupled with the intelligent strategy, for a stupid person, of simply vanishing when the votes came around. The same holds true for his career in the United States Senator. If you examine those two tenures in political office without the gloss of the media love affair, all you’ve got is plenty of nothing.

Obama’s professorship at the U. of Chicago law school was equally undistinguished. He published nothing. His disquisitions on the Constitution show he knows nothing. That is, he doesn’t even have the true intellectual’s excuse of fully understanding, but nevertheless arguing against, the language of the Constitution itself or the standard interpretations of that language. I pity the students who had his class.

In the non-Council category the winner was The Rosistance for The Lawyer in the White House, the Spy in Federal Prison: Giving Away National Security :

The President is now going to give away our national intelligence gathering and analysis capabilities, as now “discovery” is in play, and you can bet the rest of the world will be clamoring for official transcripts of the trial, and full sets of all evidence, so they can discern how we finally caught them after we first let them do their harm to the nation and our society. The men who have cost this nation close to over 7,000 lives (9/11 and the military casualties), not to mention the tens of thousands who were wounded, and on top of all of that, the massive amount of spending to demolish, then reconstruct ships, and structures they destroyed. And don’t forget to add to that the spending, both governmentally and personally, in excess of just flying from one place to another, pretty much anywhere in the world, and the cost of the delivery of goods by shipping. Yes, airport/airline and port security are major costs we have had to bear because a few men think the entire world deserves to return the the salad days of living in the desert with tents and slaves from all other parts of the world they could easily reach, or take by force of arms.

Just as the disclosures by the New York Times regarding the tracking of terrorists by their cell phone signals put out our eyes, followed by the disclosure that the US was tracking money moving to the terrorists in the international electronic banking network put us in the dark again, the discovery process will be a very similar exposure of how we actually keep ourselves protected from mass murdering individuals and groups and other nations.

Council Notes: We currently have a seat open for a qualified blogger on the Council up for grabs. If you're interested, you may apply here...or e-mail me at rmill2k@msn.com for details.

And remember, If you want to see your blog piece listed on the Watcher’s Council page our generous offer of link whorage remains open. Here's how you take advantage of it:

Simply make a post linking to this week’s Council winners

Send me an e-mail with the subject line ‘link whorage’ at rmill2k@msn.com. Include a link to that post and a link to the piece you want to appear in next week's Honorable Mentions

The resulting fame, glory and increased traffic are yours for the taking.

Here's the complete rundown of this week's results. Only Mere Rhetoric was unable to vote this week and suffered the mandatory 2/3 vote penalty, but it had no effect on the outcome this week.

I can't wait to see next week's exciting entries, and as always, congratulations not only to the winners but to all the participants.

Council Submissions

• First place with 2 2/3 points! – Bookworm Room - The Perils Of An Affirmative Action President


• Second place with 2 points – The Razor - The Ignorance of the Obama Administration


• Third place with 1 1/3 point – (Tie*) – Joshuapundit - The Afghan Shuffle


• Third place with 1 1/3 point – (Tie*) – Soccer Dad - I Am Not A Schnook


• Fourth place with 2/3 points – Right Truth - When Muslims Attack


• Fifth place with 1/3 point – (Tie*) – Rhymes with Right - On Judicial Confirmation


• Fifth place with 1/3 point – The Colossus of Rhodey - The Messiah still in "blame the US" mode in Japan

Non-Council Submissions

• First place with 3 points! – The Rosistance - The lawyer in the White House and the spy in federal prison giving away national security secrets


• Second place with 2 points – Flopping Aces - America's War of Aggression Against Muslims Confirmed by Abuse Photos


• Third place with 1 2/3 points – Middle East Strategy at Harvard - How the Saudis radicalized US Troops


• Fourth place with 2/3 points – (Tie*) – Melanie Phillips - Everything's clear to me Now


• Fourth place with 2/3 points(Tie*) – Big Government - # Obama Ally Code Pink targets children of military families for abuse


• Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – The American - Economic Prosperity: A Step of Faith


• Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – Hot Air Pundit - President Obama vs. The Rest of the World Greeting The Emperor of Japan


• Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – Common Cents - A Tale Of two Bows

If This Doesn't Make You Crack Up...

Just in time for the holidays....the Obamao toy!!! Dance to da music!

Courtesy of KGS, with maybe an assist from Pamela

AG Holder Ripped Apart in Senate Over NY 9/11 Trial

I've already given you a head's up (with a valuable assist from Rudy Giuliani) on the ridiculous notion of trying 9/11 conspirator Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York City.

Today, Attorney General Eric holder went before the Senate trying tojustify this abomination - and Senator Lindsay Graham reduced him to stuttering idiocy:



My only problem with this is that Graham was far too polite, giving Holder credit for having good motives but being 'misguided' and setting bad precedent.

In fact this is absolutely deliberate on the Obama Administration's part, because it gives them a chance to 'try' the Bush Administration, excite Obama's Angry Left base and take the heat off Prez Zero.

Yes. They're willing to compromise national security for a domestic political agenda.

Remember that you heard it here first - there's at least a 50/50 chance that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be acquitted, because (a)his attorneys will claim the evidence gathered against him is inadmissible because it was obtained under duress and 'torture', (b) because he was not given his Miranda rights when he was arrested, (c) because the federal government will have to make a choice between abiding by the disclosure rules of evidence by revealing confidential info or dropping the charges or a combination of all three.

Rest assured that if this happens, Obama and Holder attempt to spin it by blaming the Bush Administration for the acquittal instead of their decision to try KSM in civilian court, with all that implies. And it's also a nice lead in to the show trials and prosecution of Bush Administration figures who interrogated Islamist terrorists that Obama and Holder are busily working on for the near future.

The National Review's Andrew McCarthy, who actually convicted th efirst World Trade Center bombers has a superb piece on why this is such a dangerous idea for those of you who want some additional reading on the matter, and I strongly recommend it.

UPDATE: President Obama, whom I remember hearing somewhere has a law degree has committed a major legal error by commenting publicly and thus giving KSM's attorneys a handle to toss this out of court because the President of the United States just prejudiced the outcome by commenting publicly:

“I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him,” Obama told NBC’s Chuck Todd.

When Todd asked Obama if he was interfering in the trial process by declaring that Mohammed will be executed, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, insisted that he wasn’t trying to dictate the result.

“What I said was, people will not be offended if that's the outcome. I'm not pre-judging, I'm not going to be in that courtroom, that's the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury,” Obama said.

Yes,but Obama is a public figure, and he just said that KSM will be convicted and receive the death penalty - on national television! That's not something that a reasonable person would expect to have no impact, and certainly is not something KSM's attorneys are going to ignore.

Does the ONE want KSM acquitted? I wonder...

Israeli Satire OnThe Ft. Hood Attack - A Must See

From Latma, the Israeli satire group. Very funny, but very sad.

Hat tip to Caroline Glick, via the infamous Pamela.

The Next Bow...

Iran Officially Rejects Nuclear Deal

Actually, they rejected it some time ago,but this just makes it official:

Iran will not ship its low-enriched uranium out of the country for processing, its foreign minister said Wednesday, once again rejecting a UN plan aimed at thwarting any attempt by Teheran to make nuclear weapons.

Instead, Foreign Minister Manochehr Mottaki countered with a proposal certain to fall short of Western demands. {...}

"We will definitely not send our 3.5-percent enriched uranium out of the country," Mottaki told the semiofficial ISNA news agency. But he added: "That means a simultaneous fuel swap could be considered inside Iran."

Believe it not, the Obama Administration still is unwilling to admit they've been played:

In Washington, State Department spokesman Ian C. Kelly said the US was waiting for Iran to submit its formal response to the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA.

"What was said today doesn't inspire our confidence" that Iran will accept the proposal that was tentatively agreed to in Geneva.

Except, as you know if you read this site, there was no deal in Geneva!

That hopeychangey unclenched fist seems to be working out just fine, isn't it?

Palin Skewers Obama On Israel, Says He's 'Backasswards' On Economy

Sarah Palin's book comes out today, and since it's a massive bestseller that everybody's talking about already, even Lefties like Barbara Walters need her on to boost their flagging ratings.

Unlike the Oprah interview, this one had a lot less on the campaign and a lot more on policy, and Sarah Palin used the opportunity to give President Obama a few well deserved shots:

Palin, whose book, "Going Rogue: An American Life," hit bookshelves today, took aim at the Obama administration's stance on Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories.

"I disagree with the Obama administration on that," Palin told Walters. "I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand."

This comes a day after Prez Zero finally grew a pair and finally faced a FOX news interview. Believe it or not, with Afghanistan, the economy, and Iran sitting unattended on the One's plate,he still made a point of bitching to Major Garret about Jews building houses in its capitol in Gilo, a Jerusalem neighborhood that's almost entirely Jewish and has been for years.

While he always takes care to make the usual noises about how committed he is about Israel's security, thefact that he has absolutely no problem with embracing the Arab narrative at every turn and ging along with the anti-Semitic notion that Jews ought to be forbidden to build homes in certain places because they're Jews sure clue you in as to how important Israel's security is in Obama's frame of reference.


Of course, Sarah Palin never made a point of hanging out with folks like Jeremiah Wright, Khalid al-Mansour or Rashid Khalidi either.I only hope some of the misguided Left-leaning Jews that voted for this clown are finally paying attention.

On Afghanistan, she had this to say: "To listen to McChrystal, to listen to the appointee that President Obama asked for, the advice from," she said. "McChrystal gave the president the advice and said, 'We need essentially a surge strategy in Afghanistan, so that we can win in Afghanistan. And that means more resources, more troops there.' It frustrates me and frightens me -- and many Americans -- that President Obama is dithering around with the decision in Afghanistan."

I agree wholeheartedly with the dithering part,if not with the surge idea. It maddens me that our commander-in-chief has so little regard for our military that he's been letting this simmer for over ninety days now an dhas done nothing while our warriors take casualties. Not unexpected mind you, but still despicable.

And I loved this exchange,on the economy:

To address the highest unemployment levels since 1983, Palin said she would cut taxes.

"I would start cutting taxes and allowing our small businesses to keep more of what they are earning, more of what they are producing, more of what they own and earn so that they could start reinvesting in their businesses and expand and hire more people," she told Walters. "Not punishing them by forcing health care reform down their throats; by forcing an energy policy down their throats that ultimately will tax them more and cost them more to stay in business. Those are backassward ways of trying to fix the economy."

"You do have a way with words," Walters replied.

"I call it like I see it," she said. {...}

Palin said that on a scale of one to 10, she would give the president a mere four for his job performance.

"There are a lot of decisions being made that I -- and probably the majority of Americans -- are not impressed with right now," Palin said. "I think our economy is not being put on the right track, because we're strayed too far from, fundamentally, from free enterprise principles that built our country. And I question, too, some of the dithering, and hesitation with some of our national security questions that have got to be answered for our country. ... So, a four."

Heh! You go,Governor!

Watcher's Council Nominations, 11/18/09

Welcome to the latest edition of the Watcher's council, a group of some of the most incisive blogs in the`sphere. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one of their own and one from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.

COUNCIL NEWS: Only Another Black Conservative won the privilege this week of wining honorable mention on the Watcher's Council page this week by taking advantage of our link whorage opportunity.

Here's how you do it:

• Make a post on your site linking to this week's Council winners

• Send me an e-mail with the subject line 'link whorage' at rmill2k@msn.com with a link to that post and a link to a new piece you've written that you want to appear here.

• The increased traffic and the resulting fame and glory are all yours!

So, without further ado let's see what we have this week....

Council Submissions

• Soccer Dad - I am not a schnook


• Joshuapundit - The Afghan Shuffle


• Right Truth- When Muslims Attack


• Bookworm Room - The perils of an affirmative action president


• The Provocateur - The definitive dossier of Dr. Chacko


• The Colossus of Rhodey - The Messiah still in "blame the US" mode in Japan


• The Razor - The Ignorance of the Obama Administration


• Rhymes With Right - On Judicial Confirmations


• The Glittering Eye - Setting Priorities on Carbon Reduction


• Mere Rhetoric - Carter II: Obama's Losing Turkey To Political Islam

Honorable Mentions

• Another Black Conservative - Doug Hoffman Unconcedes NY 23 Race

Non-Council Submissions

• Submitted By: The Watcher – Powerline- Blind Pig finds Acorn


• Submitted By: Soccer Dad – Middle East Strategy at Harvard - How the Saudis radicalized U.S. troops


• Submitted By: Joshuapundit – Melanie Phillips - Everything's Clear To Me Now


• Submitted By: Right Truth – GrEaT sAtAnS GiRlFrIeNd - 2nd Hand Buzz


• Submitted By: Bookworm Room – Flopping Aces - America's War of Aggression Against Muslims Confirmed by Abuse Photos


• Submitted By: The Provocateur – The Rosisitance - The lawyer in the White House and the spy in federal prison giving away national security secrets


• Submitted By: The Colossus of Rhodey – The American - Economic Prosperity: A Step of Faith


• Submitted By: The Razor – Common Cents - A Tale Of Two Bows


• Submitted By: Rhymes With Right – Big Government - Obama Ally Code Pink targets children of military families for abuse


• Submitted By: The Glittering Eye – Thomas Lifson/American Thinker - Obama's Botched Bow


• Submitted By: Mere Rhetoric – HotAir Pundit - President Obama vs. The Rest of the World Greeting The Emperor of Japan

Iran: "We've Already Begun Production Of Weapons Grade Uranium"

MEMRI has an interesting if disturbing article about Iran's response to the West..that they are already beginning enrichment of uranium to the 20% weapons grade threshold. Apparently we were misled by our Fearless leader about the state of negotiations with the Mullahs:

On November 9, 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama told Reuters in an interview that an unsettled political situation in Iran may be complicating efforts to seal a nuclear fuel deal between Tehran and major world powers. This implies that a deal was reached with Iran during the nuclear talks in Vienna, but that Iran is having a hard time ratifying that deal due to criticism of it at home.

This depiction of the October 18-19, 2009 Vienna talks, and the explanation that the unstable political situation in Iran is making it difficult for the Iranian regime to announce that it agrees to the deal, are misleading. Iranian public statements since the end of the talks to date attest that:

1) No deal was ever reached during the Vienna talks. In his statements at the end of the talks - that Iran must respond to the proposal within two days - International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei was referring to a proposal to which Iran was not a party in any way, that is, the proposal drawn up by the West and by ElBaradei. According to Iran's version of events, the Vienna talks did not deal at all with the future of its nuclear program, but with its request to purchase 20%-enriched uranium for its research reactor in Tehran. The West has tried, and is still trying, to set conditions for Iran's request by insisting that it send 75% of its nuclear fuel, or approximately 1,200 kg, outside the country for enrichment; however, this enrichment will neutralize it so that it can no longer be used for military purposes. Iran rejected this condition, announcing that if it could not purchase the enriched uranium that it wanted, it would enrich it itself, and it even acknowledged that it had already begun doing so. Iran also emphasized that the two-day deadline set by ElBaradei has been misrepresented as an ultimatum - but that Iran has not recognized it as such and will not respond to any ultimatum. Iran's claim is that it has submitted its own proposal, the main thrust of which is that it either purchase enriched uranium or enrich it itself, and is insisting that it is still waiting for a response to this proposal from the West.

2) Iran's regime is currently stable. The crisis that followed the June presidential election is over, and it does not constitute a pretext for any delay on Iran's part in giving an answer to the deal because no such deal was ever concluded, and also because there is no dispute whatsoever among the various political streams in Iran regarding the nuclear issue. President Obama's claim that "an unsettled political situation in Iran may be complicating efforts to seal a nuclear fuel deal between Tehran and major world powers" reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Iran's internal power-structure, whereby Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei sets the country's nuclear policy, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad implements it.

Iran's answer was conveyed to the IAEA a week after the Vienna talks by Iranian representative to the IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh, upon his return to Vienna. Iran chose not to publicly release its official response, but instead leaked its views via various regime spokesmen. However, both the West and the IAEA have also, for weeks, refrained from publicly revealing Iran's position, so as not to expose the existence of a deep crisis in the West regarding how to deal with Iran.

The West continues to extend the deadline for Iran to weigh its proposal but the Iranian position is unchanging. However, despite Iran's unwaveringly rejectionist stance, President Obama took advantage of the date of November 4 - the 30th anniversary of the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, celebrated every year across Iran - to declare that the U.S., under his leadership, seeks to establish new relations with Iran. He said "I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect." To this, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki responded by announcing that the road to establishing Iran-U.S. relations was still long, and called on the U.S. to change its policy in order to create a new atmosphere in the Middle East. He added that Iran had as yet noticed no actual change in U.S. policy. {...}

I recommend you take a minute to read the whole thing.

The Iranian regime has again reiterated that it will not relinquish any of its uranium at all unless it receives enriched uranium from the West at the 20% level..which is the threshold for weapons grade. And they have also said that they have already begun enriching the uranium currently in Iran to that 20% level. In other words, they have already taken the measure of the man in the White House and see that he's not going to impede their plans.

Obama's little apology to the Mullahs on the anniversary of the storming of our embassy and the taking of our hostages probably underlined exactly how weak he really is.

As I said before, Iran has already been very clear about it's choices. It's Obama's turn to make one.

And the time grows short.

( hat tip and a commendation to long time Joshua's Army member Joyce C.)

Melanie Philips Explains All About The Jewish Lobby

Spectator writer Melanie Phillips, the author of the superb Londonistan has a new piece that explains how powerful the Jewish Lobby is in Britain that made me laugh out loud:

After watching Peter Oborne’s ‘Dispatches’ programme on the power of the Israel lobby in Britain, the scales have fallen from my eyes.

I now see things in an entirely different light. I now realise that the power of this unique cabal is so vast and unprecedented in its truly demonic power – a power given to no other lobby – that both the Labour government and Tory opposition slavishly and unquestioningly support Israel’s military actions and that the Guardian and the BBC have found themselves totally unable to publish or transmit anything other than wholehearted support for Israel.

I now realise that, every day, a cowed and intimidated Guardian publishes story after story in support of Israel, focusing relentlessly upon the beleaguerment of its citizens under the onslaught from Hamas while never carrying anything in favour of the Palestinians, presenting the Middle East entirely through a pro-Israel prism and never even reporting the Palestinian point of view except for a few contemptuous references suggesting that they are always lying.

Simply superb...you gotta read it all!

Sarah Palin On Rush Limbaugh - Initial Impressions

I just got finished listening to Sarah Palin do a half hour on Rush Limbaugh's show.

I thought she did pretty well.

Obviously,the interview was on friendly ground but I find that less biased than the hit jobs Katy Couric and Charlie Gibson did on her on the other direction, simply because it was live without any editing. And to be honest, Limbaugh has a great deal more integrity than those two 'journalists'.

Rather than deal with Oprah-style dirt or the 2008 campaign, Limbaugh's interview focused on politics and policy.

On the economy, Palin was outspoken about the need to do what has historically worked in bad economic times - lowering taxes on job creators and investment to put people back to work. Her views on ObamaCare are also well known and were articulated in a refreshingly straight forward way.

Palin and Limbaugh also spoke briefly about the idea of a third party ( she's against it) and attracting independents to vote for the GOP. To Governor Palin, the road there is to stand for principle and naturally attract independents, and she sees that as a coming trend, which should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with her style.

She also contrasted what she termed as the vigorous and healthy debate within the GOP with what she termed as the lock step mentality among the Democrats,where anyone who steps out of line is demonized. Frankly, I think that applies to some degree to both parties,but the difference is that in the GOP the debate tends more to range around principle and not to assume the sort of personal cast it frequently does onthe Left side of the spectrum.

On energy,Governor Palin shone. She effortlessly made the link between the energy issue and the national security issue, and referred to it as a crime that we're not utilizing the resources under our feet to enhance our own prosperity, create jobs and distance ourselves from catering to certain regimes. I couldn't agree with her more.

She also discussed increased and strict sanctions on Iran, especially of refined petroleum products as beginning steps in getting Iran's leaders to pay attention. There's no doubt in my mind that a President Palin would never countenance a nuclear armed Iran.

As you can imagine, I was disappointed that she appeared to embrace the standard conservative line on Afghanistan, calling for us to immediately send General McChrystal the troops he says he needs. I appreciate where she's coming from when she says about the Islamist terrorists 'you lose, we win', and the only place we disagree is on what winning looks like and where best to fight the battles.

She's obviously gotten a bit more polished as time has gone on, but she's also gotten a lot more effective in getting things across without losing her essential charm. Look for her to create some major waves in the future.

"If you want something said, look to a man. If you want something done, look to a woman!" - Baroness Margaret Thatcher

The Afghan Shuffle

Should I stay or should I go? If I go there will be trouble.... If I stay it will be double..-The Clash


Afghanistan has reared its ugly head, and the debate on how to handle it is in full swing. The latest is that President Obama has taken a look at the options presented to him after all this time and has decided he doesn't like any of them....so he's 'reassessing' and stalling for time again with a road trip to Asia. This time the excuse is that he wants a handover date written in stone and has questions about the Karzai government's viability as a partner.

This is not a decision where the president can vote 'present' anymore. It's been over 9o days since General McChrystal requested additional troops, and our warriors are in danger and taking casualties because the president seems to be unable to choose between his apparent inclination to stroke his Leftist base and pull out and the political need he has to justify all of the 'war of necessity' rhetoric he spouted off during the campaign in an attempt to appear presidential.

There have been some absolutely ridiculous PR tactics in an attempt to cover what ex-Vice President Dick Cheney rightfully referred to as 'dithering.'

First, there was the excuse spearheaded by Rahm Emanuel and Senator John Kerry, who said that any future troop commitments should be held off until we know for certain who won the disputed Afghan elections - as if that matters in the grand scheme of things with the corrupt Karzai government or when we have troops under fire.

Kerry managed to muscle Afghan President Hamid Karzai into a runoff, but that's a good example of how wrongheaded our strategy is there. Karzai's opponent, Abdullah Abdullah is half Tajik and was unlikely to be supported by the Pashtuns, the dominant group in Afghanistan even in the unlikely event he won.

Even more farcical, Abdullah Abdullah realized he had no chance to win, withdrew from the runoff and Karzai is the president anyway. And Karzai is unlikely to forget the slight to his personal honor, a major offense according to Pashtunwalli, the Pashtun tribal cultural code that predates Islam and in some respects is an even more powerful influence. We now have a 'partner' in Afghanistan who is livid at the Obama Administration on a personal level for besmirching him and undermining his authority.

Next there was White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel and Spokesmouth Robert Gibbs' contentions that more time was needed because there was no plan for Afghanistan and the Bush Administration had left them no intel review or strategy, they needed to start from scratch and that ex- Vice President Dick Cheney had 'left recommendations sitting on his desk for eight months.'

That ended up being proven to be a bald faced, self serving lie, with Gibbs fumbling in a press conference when asked about the review and recommendations presented to the Obama Administration by Lt. General Douglas Lute by saying he 'hadn't read it and couldn't comment.'

Leaving these bits of despicable nonsense aside, the question remains: how should we handle Afghanistan?

Part of answering the question is a realistic assessment of what's both possible and desirable, and that's been in rather short supply lately on both sides of the debate.

I've been covering the Afghanistan war in detail these past four years, even when the dinosaur media was focused on the Iraq 'carnage'. I did it because of the incredible heroism shown by our warriors there, some of whom I'm honored to be on pretty friendly terms with. They have performed everything they've been asked to do superbly under the most difficult of conditions. But Afghanistan has to be seen as what it is, a battle in a wider war, and it's time we asked ourselves whether this is the battleground we want to focus on.

The usual reason given for us staying in Afghanistan is that if we pull out, the country will become a failed state, a breeding ground for Islamist terrorism, a place for al-Qaeda to regroup and a training ground for future terrorist attacks against us. That may all very well be quite true, but tell me - is that really any different from Somalia? Or Yemen? Or Pakistan, for that matter where al Qaeda already has regrouped, together with its Taliban allies?

Pakistan, of course, is the key to the whole ballgame and what happens there will drive what happens in Afghanistan. Considering one without the other is senseless. It always was, from the very beginning.

That's another way of saying that if we really wanted to strike a blow against Islamic fascism,we went one country too far north north. Far more Islamist attacks have originated in Pakistan than in Afghanistan.

Here's the hard truth to examine. After 9/11,our political leadership refused to face the fact that a whole lot of the Muslim ummah thought what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the boys had pulled off was absolutely wonderful. That would have meant looking into who was financing the gig as well as who was financing the pushing of the ideology behind it.And it would have meant confronting some old business partners and friends known to be very generous to retired politicians and State Department functionaries.

So instead of that, they miniaturized it. Instead of telling the American people that we were in a war against jihad and Islamic fascism and confronting, militarily or otherwise the nations behind it, we were given the nonsensical notion of a 'war on terror'.

Afghanistan was part of that miniaturization. From a strategic standpoint it's worthless, especially with an increasingly Islamist Pakistan next door. I may not have gone to West Point, but even I see the folly of committing an army and billions of dollars worth of equipment into a battle ground that's land locked, surrounded by hostile territory and depends on bribes paid to a hostile Pakistan for its lifeline,via the port of Karachi and the Torkum Pass.

Even worse is the problem we may have with how we're actually fighting the war. General McChrystal is an excellent field commander, but like many of our other Generals he's a zealot for political correctness. which is likely one reason why he has the job in the first place. We've become boxed into a situation that makes actually focusing on offensive war and killing the enemy difficult, because an offensive war strategy to be effective would involve either going into Pakistan or sealing the border effectively. And the latter is difficult if not impossible in this particular terrain. Instead, we now have our troops engaged in a kinder, gentler PR push that places the emphasis on nation building, drinking tea and eating goat with the Pashtuns who want us gone anyway and see us agents of a despised Afghan government.

McChrystal's ideas are based on what he accomplished in Iraq, a very different place. He wants us to control the population centers, protect the Afghan people and gradually wean them over to our side while essentially fighting a defensive war.

The problem is that unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is a tribal society that has rarely ever had a functioning central government. And I'm not sure the American people are willing to invest another trillion dollars and 4,000 lives to experiment with nation building again at this point. Neither are our NATO allies, the ones Obama claimed he bring on board by sheer hopeychangy charm. They're champing at the bit to get away.

And since Obama has now alienated the Karzai regime, the idea that we're going to be able to control the population centers in the face of a hostile government is ludicrous on the face of it.

I'd also have to perfectly honest and say that based on his performance thus far, President Barack Hussein Obama is the last man I'd want as commander-in-chief during a war. If he wants to pull out, well and good. We're probably better off. The problem of course is that Obama always wants it both ways, because it's about him , you see. Not only does he want kudos from his Leftist base for leaving, he wants everybody to forget all those cute remarks he made about how Afghanistan was 'the real war' one that he wouldn't neglect like President Bush did.

He's always wanted to bug out, while having it both ways and avoiding being saddled with any hard choices. It's his basic nature and I'm fine with letting him go with it - except it still doesn't solve the problem of stabilizing Afghanistan or at least monitoring it.

Of course, there is another way to go to accomplish those goals there, and it basically mirrors how the British Empire successfully handled the Afghans and how Reagan dealt with the mujaheddin, but with a few changes.

If we actually want to 'win' here, we need to define it strictly as making sure that we have enough oversight in Afghanistan to make sure that it doesn't become an Islamist fascist state that's going to pose a security problem for us.

If that's the goal, then flooding the area with US power including Pakistan, and engaging in an occupation and nation building again might achieve it, but the end results are likely to be fairly dubious and counterproductive. High cost, low return.

Instead,a far better and more workable idea is to stop treating Afghanistan as a 'country' and more like a system of tribal areas of influence, which is what it actually is.

First, we should waste no time in distancing ourselves from the Karzai government and pulling most of our troops out as soon as feasibly possible , along with every bit of our gear that isn't nailed down.

And as we do that, I'd concentrate on dealing with the tribes and the warlords directly, because that's where the real power lies.

I've seen some excellent ideas from men who ought to know about actually utilizing the tribal society of Afghanistan to our advantage by embedding small,specialized groups of troops within the tribes to to live with - and fight alongside - the Pashtun tribesmen who dominate southern and eastern Afghanistan and have no loyalty to the government in Kabul.

It's a sensible strategy, especially if we allow the warlords and tribes to cut a deal with us so that we're paying them directly, just as we did with the Sunni tribes in Iraq. And there's an additional advantage in that many of the Afghan tribes, having experienced Taliban-style government at first hand already would just as soon keep their autonomy.

We'd keep the arms and a stipend coming to our tribal allies as long as they followed through, just like the British did to theirs, and we'd have enough boots on the ground to provide intel so we could utilize air and drone power to keep things tidy when necessary.

Part of assuring that loyalty would involve decisively dealing with Afghanistan's other problem, the opium trade. That's something we're not doing at all now.

Over a year ago, I suggested that we choke the financing of the Taliban and its allies by becoming a major player in the Opium trade.

Afghanistan is by far one of the largest sources of opium poppies. That trade not only plays a major role in the finances of the Taliban but is the major source of income for a number of US-friendly warlords as well...which is one reason that efforts to curtail the trade have been sporadic at best. It's a $100 billion US plus industry, money which goes a long way there. But simply destroying the fields would deprive a number of Afghans of their livelihood, not to mention turning a great many tribal chiefs against us.

Instead, we should use classic capitalism,combined with a bit of Mafia-like intransigence. We should 'offer' to buy the opium poppy crops outright at fair market prices from friendly warlords and tribal chiefs with the proviso that anyone caught selling and delivering to anyone other than the US is going to have his fields destroyed without delay.

A portion of the crop could be resold legitimately to pharmaceutical companies to manufacture prescription opiates - the rest could be destroyed. The tribal chiefs would be happy with this arrangement, because they would be receiving money for their usual product without the risk of smuggling, and the US could then command their loyalty as their chief economic benefactor. It would also have the side benefit of having the US government controlling the market on these substances rather than, say, the Mafia or the Union Corse' or some other group of drug lords.

We might also, as a parting shot, destroy the processing labs, which are located in Pakistan. The Taliban have invested heavily in these facilities. And if I were making the decision myself, I might give some thought to taking out Pakistan's nuclear facilities at the same time, or at the very least I'd want a clear contingency plan for doing so that could be implemented on fairly quick notice. But that's another topic.

The Afghan tribes themselves, backed up by our inter-tribal teams and our air power would take charge of keeping our enemies out of the areas of Afghanistan they control. It would pay for them to do so, and it would accomplish what we need to accomplish there at a fraction of the human and economic cost.

Then, with that front stabilized to a degree, we might, hopefully with different leadership be able to begin to prepare our forces and resources for the real war to come.

-selah-

Obama Bows Down Low - Again

A minor item, one that tells us a great deal about President Barack Hussein Obama.

Fleeing from the bad news on unemployment and the necessity of making a decision on how to handle Afghanistan, the president decided once again to resort to a road trip - this time to Asia.

The picture above shows him greeting Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko with a full on bow from the waist,looking as though he was bending down to tie the Emperor's shoes. it's reminiscent of his bowing and scraping to the Saudi King on a prior occasion, an instinctual movement when Obama's early Muslim training took over for a minute.

This time was very different, and was such an embarrassment to the Japanese that several papers avoided running the photo.

Here's why. Bowing in Japan is a custom showing mutual respect, but it's never done in this fashion.

First,it's never combined with a handshake..ever. it's always one or the other.

Second,the normal Japanese bow is a slight hunching of the shoulders and an inclination of the head about fifteen degrees or so, with the person who is subservient or of lower status going a bit lower than the person he's bowing to.

The Emperor never bows to anyone, so either a slight inclination of the head or even better, a handshake would have been the correct way to greet him.

For President Obama to virtually kowtow like this was not only demeaning to America but embarrassing to the Emperor,who covered his discomfort by smiling, as is the Japanese custom. It was the equivalent of Obama's wearing a kick me sign on the seat of his pants.

What's more, I would assume that Obama, being from Hawaii would be familiar with this aspect of Japanese culture. or at the very least, you'd think that he would have the basic common sense to ask our embassy staff in Japan about the correct protocol so as not to embarrass himself and our country.

Here's a cute video showing how virtually every other world leader greets the Japanese Emperor..as compared to Obama's faux pas:



The Japanese are already not exactly enamored of Obama because of our fecklessness on North Korea, which was a factor in their recent elections.

This just sort of underlined it.

Psycho babble

Obama Caught Endorsing Gitmo Detainee Military Tribunals - in 2006

A little history, courtesy of Breitbart, giving us a look at Senator Obama back in 2006 speaking in favor of military tribunals, saying on the senate floor that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to get a "full military trial with all the bells and whistles"..."justice will be carried out in his case".

How do you know when Obama is lying? Simple - are his lips moving?

Maximum Denial - Gitmo Enemy Detainees To be Tried In NYC

By now, many of you know about the Obama administration's latest brainstorm - take Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other Gitmo scum and try them in civilian courts in New York City.

I originally had a piece scheduled to dissect this nonsense, but then I ran across this video of ex-NYC mayor an dex-federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani being interviewed by Neil Cavuto that explains it even better:





Everything Rudy Giuliani says here is one hundred per cent accurate, including the possibility of a change of venue and/or an acquittal.And keep in mind that KSM and his fellow enemy combatants have already confessed to what they were accused of.

Confessed?!?! They're are proud of what they did as Soldiers of Allah. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever not to do a quick military tribunal and an execution, followed by a pigskin burial as a warning and deterrent to others.

That's exactly the way FDR treated German saboteurs in WWII sans pigskin...a military tribunal and then a rope necktie party. Or what our Brit friends would call the Tyburn Jig.

Maybe if we started doing that, the Major Hasans among us might have a few second thoughts.

Rudy skirts around saying it, but I'll call it what it is - a blatant attempt by the Obama Administration to appease the Muslim world at the expense of his fellow citizens. And it's also likely designed to distract the news cycle from the Obama Administration's abysmal failings by putting the Bush Administration on trial. And believe me, that's exactly what will happen. The ACLU,Lawyer's Guild and Center For Constitutional Rights Leftard attorneys will literally fistfight over the opportunity to volunteer to do just that,and the dinosaur media will eagerly embrace any opportunity to try and take the heat off Prez Zero.

Not only that, but it paves the way for those CIA witch trial prosecutions Obama and Holder are planning, to massage Obama's Leftist Base with political payback.

Another thing Rudy obviously knows but doesn't say is the problem of discovery. The defense attorneys will be screaming for classified US intel to make public not only during the discovery phase but during the actual trial, where they will try to call intelligence informants as witnesses. Even if the data is given to them with the proviso that it remain classified, rest assured that with these particular lawyers, it wil be leaked to our enemies.

Remember Lynne Stewart?