Bloodthirsty Liberal

Barack Obama: US is at war with al-Qaeda

Who had January 7th in the pool? Carol? Aggie? I had December 29th, but I’m a wild-eyed optimist.

Of course, I have a hard time taking seriously the Community Organizer in Chief as a Commander in Chief.

When I hear him say we are at war, I hear vague echoes of other such declarations:

And if you haven’t yet had enough yet (and how could you?), imagine the entire Obama cabinet breaking into song and dance like this over a declaration of war

President Obama has had to eat so many of his words, I don’t see how he stays so trim (probably because they’re so empty and free of substance to begin with):

“We know that [Abdulmutallab] travelled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies,” Obama says. “It appears that he joined an affiliate of al-Qaeda, and that this group, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America.”

What does “crushing poverty” have to do with it? Abdulchocolatelab, or whatever his name is, wasn’t crushed by no stinkin’ poverty. He came from a family of means, and looked a little chubby to me.

But to repeat the question in the title, why did my president tell me the G-string Jihadist (not my invention, but perhaps better than Bomb Crotchit, which was) was an “isolated extremist” when that was the farthest thing from the truth?

Next thing, he’ll tell me the fellow passengers who subdued the Fruit-of-the-Boomer “acted stupidly”.

No, but he himself does speak stupidly:

The video also contains thinly-veiled criticism of the counter-terror strategy of George W. Bush. Obama says that the current administration has “refocused the fight” against al-Qaeda on Afghanistan and Pakistan, while “bringing to a responsible end to the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.”

I don’t know why he puts down the war in Iraq so often. If he weren’t so ideologically blinded, he could claim credit for this (even though it’s no thanks to him):

A very good and very welcome piece of news to start off the New Year: No American soldiers lost their lives in combat in Iraq last month.

Combat fatalities have been steadily decreasing since June of 2009, when troop drawdowns in Baghdad and other cities began in earnest. Since July, American forces have suffered five or fewer combat-related deaths each month. Casualties among Iraqis have also decreased to their lowest levels since the war began in 2003.

Said General Raymond Odierno, top commander in the Iraqi theater: “[This] is a very significant milestone for us as we continue to move forward. …”

Obama betrays himself as a man afraid to stand up for himself. He always needs the specter of Bush to stand beside him. Who ever said Iraq was behind 9/11? That comment, and the “isolated extremist” comment (and who can forget the “system worked” comment?), betray him as philosophically unprepared (or worse, opposed) to defending this country from enemies foreign and domestic.

Speaking of isolated extremists, do you think this fellow was one?

Danish police on Friday shot and wounded a man trying to enter the home of an artist who drew controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

The man, a 27-year-old Somalian who was armed with an axe, was caught trying to break into the home of Kurt Westergaard at 10pm local time, police said.

Police shot the man, injuring him in his leg…

Extremist, sure. But isolated? My ass.

Mark Steyn’s comment:

[A] significant percentage of Muslims in the west do not understand concepts such as pluralism and freedom of expression. A further percentage understand them very well but reject them as loser fetishes incompatible with the requirements of Islamic supremacism - and have a shrewd sense that when, push comes to shove, a lot of these fine liberal concepts crumble to nothing.

Or, if I may observe: never bring a quill to an axe fight (or an axe to a gun fight, I suppose).

I can’t keep straight all the false accusations of misconduct by American forces—I remember Haditha, Ishaqi, Gitmo (even Abu Ghraib was overblown).

Now, we can add Blackwater (e-e-e-vil laughter):

A federal judge dismissed manslaughter charges Thursday against five Blackwater security guards in the 2007 deaths of Iraqi civilians in a Baghad square, finding that prosecutors wrongly used the men’s own statements against them.

The September 2007 shootout in Baghdad’s Nusoor Square left 17 Iraqis dead and two dozen wounded. The killings led Iraq’s government to slap limits on security contractors hired by Blackwater, now known as Xe, and other firms.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina found that the government’s case was built largely on “statements compelled under a threat of job loss in a subsequent criminal prosecution,” a violation of the Fifth Amendment rights of the five men charged.

“In their zeal to bring charges against the defendant in this case, the prosecutors and investigators aggressively sought out statements the defendants had been compelled to make to government investigators in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and in the subsequent investigation,” Urbina wrote in a 90-page decision.

Federal prosecutors “repeatedly disregarded the warnings of experienced, senior prosecutors assigned to the case” in doing so, he found.

Urbina also sharply criticized prosecutors and federal agents who developed the case, calling their explanations for using the guards’ statements “all too often contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility.”

“In short, the government has utterly failed to prove that it made no impermissible use of the defendants’ statements or that such use was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” he wrote.

Obviously, the 17 dead Iraqis indicate something serious, even terrible, happened. But can we stop trying in the press our soldiers and contractors serving the nation?

Doesn’t their service alone warrant better, not worse, certainly not shameful, treatment?

As the leftists in our administration never tire of reminding us, our values are what make us strong. I’d say the right against self-incrimination is up there among values worth protecting. Let’s give those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan at least the same consideration we’re giving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Deal?

Some call for the UN to intercede in war-torn regions like Darfur.

I say such evil cannot be allowed to happen:

A U.N.-backed Congolese military operation to oust rebels from eastern Congo has caused more civilian casualties than damage to rebels, with more than 1,400 people deliberately killed over a nine-month period, human rights groups said Monday.

Human Rights Watch said it had documented “vicious and widespread” attacks against civilians by soldiers and rebels between January and September. Soldiers being fed and supplied with ammunition by the United Nations have killed civilians, gang-raped girls and cut the heads off some young men they accuse of being rebels or supporting the enemy, groups said.

“For every rebel combatant disarmed, one civilian has been killed, seven women and girls have been raped, six houses have been burned and destroyed and 900 people have been forced to flee their homes,” British-based organization Oxfam said.

Human Rights Watch said it documented the killings of 732 civilians between January and September by the Congolese army and troops from neighboring Rwanda fighting alongside it. In the same period, it counted 701 civilians killed by the rebels they are fighting.

“Some victims were tied together before their throats were, according to one witness, ’slit like chickens.’ The majority of the victims were women, children, and the elderly,” the group said.

More than 7,500 cases of sexual violence against women and girls were registered at health centers during that nine-month period, nearly double that of 2008 and likely representing only a fraction of the total.

…

“The U.N. peacekeepers are being put in an appalling situation where they are supporting an army that is attacking its own population,” it said.

What an excuse this might have made for Tiger Woods: “honey, I did it for the UN!” Except Tiger didn’t sleep with any black women. Oh well.

But it would seem that the UN is a great place to get laid—if you’re male:

The United Nations, which aspires to protect human rights around the world, is struggling to deal with an embarrassing string of sexual-harassment complaints within its own ranks.

Many U.N. workers who have made or faced accusations of sexual harassment say the current system for handling complaints is arbitrary, unfair and mired in bureaucracy. One employee’s complaint that she was sexually harassed for years by her supervisor in Gaza, for example, was investigated by one of her boss’s colleagues, who cleared him.

Cases can take years to adjudicate. Accusers have no access to investigative reports. Several women who complained of harassment say their employment contracts weren’t renewed, and the men they accused retired or resigned, putting them out of reach of the U.N. justice system.

And if you like to read about the sexual exploitation of the poor and war-ravaged by their supposed protectors, enjoy.

Or al-Somali?

Pakistani media’s been reporting that the target was Abu Yahya al-Libi, a fish big enough that even a novice like me has heard of him. (He broke out of Bagram prison in 2005 and has been preaching his way up the ranks ever since, reportedly becoming head of the group’s “Libyan wing” and a possible successor to Bin Laden as figurehead.) That’s also the buzz on jihadi web forums. But it’s a red herring, says ABC: The splatter in this case belongs to a top capo named Saleh al-Somali.

According to the U.S. official, Saleh al-Somali was responsible for al Qaeda’s operations outside of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region and formed part of al Qaeda’s senior leadership circle. He is also said to have had “connections with other Pakistan-based extremists.”

Al-Somali was engaged in plotting terrorist acts around the world and “given his central role, this probably included plotting attacks against the United States and Europe,” the official said.

Al-Somali took operations guidance from senior al Qaeda leaders and “translated it into operational blueprints for prospective terrorist attacks,” the official added.

I think I’d like to be called al-Bloodthirstani from now on. Either that, or your eminence.

Anyhow, nice shootin’. President Obama told us he’d be doing more of this, and danged if he didn’t.

Here’s what it might have looked like:

If you’ll pardon the hackneyed expression, what if Bush had done this?

Obama had quite a whirlwind day Thursday – he signed the Nobel guest book, huddled with Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, met with King Harald V and Queen Sonja, and delivered an acceptance speech after he was formally presented with the prize. He also joined the king and queen at an evening banquet.

But he skipped out on several other activities, including lunch with the king, a news conference at Oslo’s Grand Hotel, CNN’s traditional interview with the prize winner and a “Save the Children” benefit concert, where organizers replaced him with an Obama cardboard cutout. Obama also won’t be around for Friday’s Nobel Concert.

Skipping out on a Nobel Concert? Outrageous! You just can’t hear Grieg’s Piano Concerto enough times (actually, you can).

I just want to know where we can get a Obama cardboard cutout. It’s almost benign:

If Tiger were truly advising President Obama, he’d never have blown off the event. So many cute blonde girls: a target-rich opportunity.

But let’s get serious (for once), and have a brief look at yet another speech by the Great Orator himself, mmm-mmm-mmm:

I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize - Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela - my accomplishments are slight.

Aw, come on, Barack: Arafat and Carter, Gore and El Baradei. You’re right where you belong.

I am satisfied that he justified the necessary use of war at a peace prize ceremony—even if CodeSkank must be gagging up a hair ball—but I wish he’d stop inflating his own importance:

Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago - “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak -nothing passive - nothing naïve - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

Aren’t we all people “who stand here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work”? Didn’t his life and death transform all of America? Can’t his model serve as an inspiration to me? My first sports heroes were (by sport) Roberto Clemente, Bobby Orr, Paul Warfield, and Bill Russell—a Puerto Rican, a Canadian, and two black men, a veritable United Nations of Hall of Famers. But it wasn’t intentional or self-conscious. I just wish President Obama stopped reminding us so often of his Historic Importance (nce-nce-nce).

I don’t have the stamina to go much further, but one last point:

[E]ven as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions.

You “ordered” Guantanamo closed? That’s like saying I “ordered” Pamela Anderson to disrobe. Neither is likely to happen any time soon (thank God—such human degradation and disfiguring should not be made widely known lest it inflame the public).

And I’m too tired of the torture argument to take it up here. We are just lucky that the Bush administration was in power when it was. And we’ll just have to survive this one as best we can.

My profundity is in the shop today, but I didn’t want “the date which will live in infamy” to pass by unnoted.

Unfortunately, I’ve been all over whitehouse.gov to find President Obama’s grave and measured words on the occasion, and I can’t find a single one, neither grave nor measured. It’s all health care, climate, and a little jobs. Nothing there or in the news either I could find about the day America received its single greatest body blow to that time—and rallied to defeat the genocidal regime that launched it. And another genocidal regime across the world to boot.

Not that I expected him to: the parallels are not flattering.

There’s a local cemetery I know of which features near its front gate a monument to the town’s fallen in World War One whose remains were never returned home. It says “We will never forget you”, and perhaps they meant it at the time. But I wonder if even one of them is remembered by anyone? Maybe a lost grandfather or great-grandfather in family lore, but the town, the state, the nation don’t remember.

I’m a hawk relative to many, but I insist we remember that war ends the lives of many young men (mostly) we send to fight. It would be nice if the doves (relative to most) also observed the rite.

General McChrystal forgot that President Obama doesn’t like to use the word “victory”:

In June, McChrystal noted, he had arrived in Afghanistan and set about fulfilling his assignment. His lean face, hovering on the screen at the end of the table, was replaced by a mission statement on a PowerPoint slide: “Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population.”

“Is that really what you think your mission is?” one of the participants asked.

In the first place, it was impossible — the Taliban were part of the fabric of the Pashtun belt of southern Afghanistan, culturally if not ideologically supported by a major part of the population. “We don’t need to do that,” Gates said, according to one participant. “That’s an open-ended, forever commitment.”

But that was precisely his mission, McChrystal responded, enshrined in the Strategic Implementation Plan — the execution orders for the March strategy, written by the NSC staff.

“I wouldn’t say there was quite a ‘whoa’ moment,” a senior defense official said of the reaction around the table. “It was just sort of a recognition that, ‘Duh, that’s what in effect the commander understands he’s been told to do.’ Everybody said, ‘He’s right.’”

“It was clear that Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent” of the NSC document, said Jones, who had signed the orders himself. “I’m not sure that in his position I wouldn’t have done the same thing, as a military commander.” But what he created in his assessment “was obviously something much bigger, and more longer-lasting . . . than we had intended.”

…

On Oct. 9, after awaking to the news that he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama listened to McChrystal’s presentation. The “mission” slide included the same words: “Defeat the Taliban.” But a red box had been added beside it, saying that the mission was being redefined, Jones said. Another participant recalled that the word “degrade” had been proposed to replace “defeat.”

Already briefed on the previous day’s discussion, the president “looked at it and said, ‘To be fair, this is what we told the commander to do. Now, the question is, have we directed him to do more than what is realistic? Should there be a sharpening . . . a refinement?’ ” one participant recalled.

Degrade the Taliban? Heck, I can do that.

Ahem.

You mangy, scrofulous, hogs—get on your knees and lick my boots! Lick, I said, not kiss!! Let me see tongue. I want these Doc Martens to shine like the full moon. Now, beg my forgiveness. Beg, you worthless cur….

I have some experience, you see, in degradation. I offer my services to my country, especially if I could be joined by Condoleezza Rice in thigh-high patent leather boots.

As the president would say: let me be clear. It is one thing—and a very good thing, too—to change strategy based on the facts on the ground. It is quite another to forgot what the [bleep] they had already told their commander in the field.

Perhaps if the president had met with General McChrystal in the intervening months—McChrystal revealed they hadn’t, remember—he might have recalled such a minor detail. And, who knows, maybe some lives might have been spared?

Way back in the campaign, I erroneously concluded that Obama didn’t want to be president. His bizarre rejection of the flag pin only for a brief period after 9/11—he wore one before and wears one now—among other suicidal stances, opinions, statements, and relationships, were automatic disqualifiers it seemed to me. Maybe even to him, even if we were both wrong.

But I think there’s still something to it. If being president means having to oppose evil, oppose it by means stronger than a speech and a photo op, then he’s not interested.

At least not interested enough to remember how he told the most powerful military force in the history of the planet to conduct itself.

I’m sure it was Bush’s fault.

No, that’s not a Ryder Cup competition, or any other golf term.

It’s the number of testicles owned by the entire Washington press corps—shared among Major Garrett and Jake Tapper (and Helen Thomas, of course):

TAPPER: Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld took issue with a lot of the speech last night, and I just wanted to clarify it. The president said commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. I assume you’re referring to the McKiernan requests throughout 2008.

GIBBS: Well, I — that’s, I believe, what the speech — the line of the speech. I will let Secretary Rumsfeld explain to you and to others whether he thinks that the effort in Afghanistan was sufficiently resourced during his tenure as secretary of defense.

TAPPER: Well, he says…

GIBBS: I — I think that’s — that’s something that, you know…

TAPPER: … he said he’s not aware of a single request of that nature between 2001 and 2006 when he was secretary of defense.

GIBBS: I — again, I’ll let him explain to the American public whether he believes that the effort in Afghanistan during 2001 to 2006 was appropriately resourced. You know, you go to war with the secretary of defense you have, Jake.

TAPPER: That’s cute. The — the question, though, is what specifically was President Obama talking about when he said that?

GIBBS: Again, what President Obama was talking about were additional resource requests that came in during 2008, which we’ve discussed in here. But Jake, again, I’ll leave it to the secretary of defense in 2001 to 2006 to discuss the level of resourcing for that — understanding the level of commitment that we already had dedicated in Iraq, and whether or not he feels sufficient that history will judge the resourcing decisions that he made during that time period in the war in Afghanistan were or were not sufficient.

In other words, Barack Obama lied during the speech.

As we noted two days ago. It wasn’t a mistake or a misspeak: he read it off TOTUS.

As Ed Morrissey notes:

Obama made that accusation, and Gibbs tried dodging the question because he couldn’t come up with any support for it.

And who was the Secretary of Defense in 2008? Why, none other than Obama’s current SecDef, Robert Gates.

And what did candidate Obama think about surges back in ‘07?

Let him tell you:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. 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.

Gotta let Rush have the last word:

He’s an idiot. He is a lying idiot! He says he can’t find a general who will tell him it worked? Have you ever heard of David Petraeus, who is a general? It is working. A year and a half ago, he is dead wrong. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. When he’s put on the spot like this, and he doesn’t have an answer prewritten that he has memorized, he is wandering aimlessly in search of a thought. Axelrod said, “Well, of course going to throw soldiers at something, it’s going to work.” No! Just the opposite. Obama, in his own words: the surge is impossible. We will hold onto this bite, and we will continue to play it at the appropriate strategic times to clearly illustrate: This man knows not at all from what he is saying.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la meme chose.

Peggy Noonan nails a few problems with President Obama’s speech (eech-eech-eech):

But there was too much “I” in the speech. George H.W. Bush famously took the word “I” out of his speeches—we called them “I-ectomies”—because of a horror of appearing to be calling attention to himself. Mr. Obama is plagued with no such fears. “When I took office . . . I approved a long-standing request . . . After consultations with our allies I then . . . I set a goal.” That’s all from one paragraph. Further down he used the word “I” in three paragraphs an impressive 15 times. “I believe I know” “I have signed” “I have read” “I have visited.”

I, I—ay yi yi. This is a man badly in need of an I-ectomy.

Is that a threat? I would suggest someone notify the Secret Service, but the president deserves better than that.

She also steals some of my material:

After the president announced his plan he seemed to slip in, “After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.” Then came the reference to July 2011 as the date departure begins. It was startling to hear a compelling case for our presence followed so quickly by an abrupt announcement of our leaving. It sounded like a strategy based on the song Groucho Marx used to sing, “Hello, I must be going.”

Now, where have I read that before (nine days ago)?

But she completely redeems herself at the end: shake what your mama gave you, Peggy!

About two-thirds of the way through, the speech degenerated into the faux eloquence that makes people listening across our nation want to gouge out their eyes and run screaming from the room. Lots of our children and our children’s children, the dark clouds of tyranny, the light of freedom. Our strength comes from “the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home . . .”

This is where normal people began to daydream. Or scream. None of it was terrible, but we’ve heard it now for 40 years. Enough. Make it new.

I’m still laughing.