AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Debunking Stupid Liberal Memes, Part VII: “Bush Lied, People Died!”

Back in 2006, Bill Whittle wrote a brilliant piece entitled “Seeing the Unseen” in which he dismantled many of the typical Liberal mantras, most of which could be found proudly and ignorantly plastered on the back of their car bumpers. This post by Mr. Whittle was the first one I read by him and it made me an instant fan of his work. Read on and you will soon see why:

Bill Whittle:
Pajamas Media
PJTV Afterburner Series
Facebook
Twitter
Big Hollywood

Bush Lied, People Died.

Recent reports of the advanced state of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and the confirmed presence of 700+ chemical shells leaves this chestnut in some disarray. However, even if you take that away, the entire concept is a cowardly and petty retreat spoken by people who know better.

Here is a pretty decent encapsulation of what both Republicans and Democrats had to say about Saddam and WMD’s. You will find Bush’s and Rumsfeld’s rhetoric somewhat less adamant and warlike than that of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, Robert Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, Hans Blix, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger and all the rest. These were elected representatives who studied the same intelligence that the White House did, and came to the same conclusion.

Unfortunately for them, Al Gore in his unbridled enthusiasm went and invented the Internet, and so now there is a record of what they said and when, available to the great unwashed masses. It shows a group of people deeply concerned about what was a pressing threat to this country. And now, almost all of them claim they were lied to? Are they capable of reading intelligence reports themselves, or did Bush have to read it to them aloud, with them seated at his knee in My Pet Goat fashion, skipping the parts he didn’t think would make a good sell? Some people say that they did not get the same intelligence that Bush got. To the degree that is or isn’t true, the record shows that it was the more outlandish claims that were not included, so that the intelligence that led them to come out against Saddam and in favor of military action was less provocative than the intelligence the President and Secretaries of State and Defense saw.

The invasion of Iraq was meant to prevent Saddam Hussein from using Weapons of Mass Destruction. This mission was accomplished by the time President Bush stood on that carrier deck. The huge majority of casualties we have incurred in the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq have come about by our willingness to rebuild and secure a country that we owed nothing to whatsoever.

Here is the legacy of the Bush Lied, People Died crowd: in the future, we know that no good deeds — building of hundreds of schools and hospitals — will go reported. We know that no foul deeds — a handful of idiots humiliating prisoners over the course of a few days — will ever be put into perspective.

So why do it? Why build schools and hospitals, and protect polling places, and suffer the casualties we have suffered to get a country on it’s feet, if all we hear and see is the negative and the undeniable failures? The next time we have to go and kick the hell out of some band of rabid crazies, why not just kick the hell out of them and then go home? Because there will be a next time, and I suspect sooner rather than later. By refusing to report the myriad successes and kindnesses, our compassionate and caring moral betters in the media have only shown there is very little reason to do them in the first place, except for the satisfaction of our own morality and conscience — which I hope will be enough.

Let me leave you with something very, very important. It is the greatest logical fallacy of them all, and if you hope to gain any perspective in the world today, I believe you have to understand what I am about to say in your bones.

You cannot just count the hits and not record the misses.

May I show you something to make this point?

What you are about to see is a graphical representation of commercial air flights over the US on any given day. You will see dawn on the east coast as more and more flights get airborne, and watch morning spread to the west as the country comes alive. It is one of the most beautiful marriages of science and art I have ever seen. It is here. Go take a peek then come back. I’ll still be here.

Every dot in that animation is a jetliner, carrying hundreds of people. This is the first time I have ever actually seen the miracle that takes place in our skies every single day.

Why am I showing you this? Well, because every single dot in that ocean of sparks is a successful flight. Tens of thousands of flights land in this country every single day and no one says a word about it. And yet, when there is an accident — and you would have to watch every dot in that animation almost 2000 times to get back to the last fatal accident by a large-scale carrier — that sticks in our minds, obviously, and that image of burning wreckage is what stays with some people on their entire flight. They do not think about all the millions of flights that land safely. Nor do they think about the thousands of car accidents that occur with so much greater frequency.

Why?

Because we are recording only the hits — the crashes — and not recording the misses, namely, the safe landings. If you had to drive to work every day listening to radio announcements of every successful landing, you would be listening to a cacophony of flight numbers twenty-four hours a day. After a few years of this you might be able to get a glimmer of perspective on the safety of modern air travel.

Likewise in Iraq. Hand out candies to children on a daily basis, and the smiles and gratitude are nowhere to be seen on US television. But if some death-loving lunatic decides to scatter body parts to the four winds you can bet that will get the News media’s attention. Complete a new hospital, or a water treatment plant, or bring electricity or television stations to neighborhoods that never had them before? Yawn.

On the day of the last Iraqi elections — the day they ratified the constitution the press said these people would never ratify — CNN’s lead story was about nasty rain showers sweeping the southeast. About these historic elections there was heard not a peep.

Iraqi TV has a version of American Idol. Did you know that? They produce hundreds of hours of comedies, game shows — all that stuff. Sounds a little arcane for Iraq, you say? A little normal? That’s because people who believe they are smarter than you have decided that such stories of hope and success do not fit the narrative needed to teach you poor ignorant slobs the lesson that you are supposed to be learning, and that lesson is that George Bush is a murderer while Saddam was a statesman, and that Iraq is a failure fueled by the blood of poor, innocent, child-like soldiers too stupid to realize that they are dying to line the pockets of Halliburton.

My critical thinking skills, such as they are, tell me that you might be able to corral an army and send it over there under such false pretenses. What I cannot explain is why so many people in the military re-up, two or three or four times, to go back and fight for this oil-soaked lie that people here maintain is the truth, despite what the people who have actually been over there have to say about it.

This is an all-volunteer military. Why would so many of these people keep returning to such danger, and put themselves and their families at such terrible risk, for a lie or a mistake?

If Iraq is a con game and an oil steal and an unwinnable quagmire then this just doesn’t make any sense. But back they go! That’s the data. The people most optimistic about Iraq — and those with the most to lose — are generally the same people. They are the men and women who are over there now because they believe they are doing something honorable and good. No one is forcing them to reenlist. Hear that John? I’d hire any one of these people in a heartbeat. They are brighter than the general population, and they are so far beyond their Ivory Tower critics in terms of discipline, courage, ingenuity, integrity and honor that it makes one’s head spin.

Are we beating these terrorist scumbags and child-targeting insurgent bastards? Are we winning?

Well, let’s see if we want to switch sides with them. Let’s imagine the war where the insurgents have our cards and we hold theirs.

Imagine the US completely occupied by Al Qaeda forces, subject to Sharia law. We are able to take pot shots at a few of them, and we manage to murder a few dozen of our own people every day in an attempt to stop the population from collaborating with the hated invader. But more and more Americans seem to be turning to Sharia and want to get on with their lives. We find sixty percent of the population wants Al-Qaeda to leave, but hatred for the US insurgent forces — the Wolverines — is at about 98%. The people hate the occupiers, but they despise the Wolverines.

Now imagine that a year into the occupation of America, George Bush’s two daughters were killed in a firefight with the enemy, which had surrounded the college sorority house where they were hiding. A year after that, President Bush was pulled out of a septic tank in Crawford by the Fedayeen, then put on trial and sentenced to hang, which he did on national television to widespread cheering. Condi Rice, captured in an early morning raid several years ago, has been a great source of useful information to target the American resistance, and Donald Rumsfeld was killed by a suicide bomber this last summer.

Everywhere you turn — in every street and every city in America — Al Qaeda forces run security patrols, training Americans to do this for themselves. The only way to stop this is by killing our own people, which further alienates us from a populace that already despises us.

Does that feel like winning to you? Me neither. Welcome to the insurgency.

March 7, 2010 , 2:01PM Posted by | Bill Whittle, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Iraq, Liberalism, Military History, Operation Iraqi Freedom, WMDs | Comments Off on Debunking Stupid Liberal Memes, Part VII: “Bush Lied, People Died!”

Debunking Stupid Liberal Memes, Part II: “No Blood for Oil!”

Back in 2006, Bill Whittle wrote a brilliant piece entitled “Seeing the Unseen” in which he dismantled many of the typical Liberal mantras, most of which could be found proudly and ignorantly plastered on the back of their car bumpers. This post by Mr. Whittle was the first one I read by him and it made me an instant fan of his work. Read on and you will soon see why:

Bill Whittle:
Pajamas Media
PJTV Afterburner Series
Facebook
Twitter
Big Hollywood

No Blood for Oil!

Sometimes, the best way to examine a radical assertion is to assume that it is correct and examine the likely consequences. For example, proponents of the Loch Ness Monster assert that there is a surviving plesiosaur lurking in the murky depths of a Scottish lake. We are then drawn into endless discussion of distant wakes and grainy photos and claims of hoaxes, etc. But if you cut to the chase, so to speak, and grant the premise, where does that leave you? Plesiosaurs are air-breathing reptiles that have to daily consume massive amounts of fish to survive. There are essentially no fish in Loch Ness. Does it order out for pizza? Also, as an air breather, we would not have a surface sighting once or twice a decade, but hundreds of times a day. If you grant the premise of an air-breathing dinosaur the entire proposition becomes ridiculous, not on the basis of the evidence, but on the monumental lack of evidence supporting the idea.

Likewise with a ‘war for oil’. What would a real “war for oil” look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port — probably Basra — and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.

There would have been no overland campaign — what for? — and no fight for Baghdad. Fallujah and Mosul and all those other trouble spots would never even see an American boot. Why? No oil there. The US Military would do what it is extraordinarily well-trained to do: take and hold a very limited area, and supply secure convoys to and from this limited area on an ongoing basis. Saddam could have stayed if he wanted: probably would have saved us a lot of trouble, and the whole thing would have become a sort of super no-fly zone over the oil fields, ports and convoy routes, and the devil take the rest of it. Sadr City IED deaths? Please. What the f**k does Sadr City have that we need?

That’s what a war for oil would look like. It’s entirely possible that such an operation could have been accomplished and maintained without a single American fatality.

We have lost thousands killed and wounded because they are being blown up as they continue to provide security, electrical and water services, schools and hospitals to a land ravaged by three decades of fear, torture and barbarism. It is the American presence in the cities, providing security and some semblance of order for Iraqi citizens, that has cost us so many lives. If we are going to be tarred and slandered and pay the public relations price for ‘stealing Iraqi oil,’ then the least we can do is go in and actually steal some of it, instead of dying to protect that resource for the use of the Iraqi people. Which is what is happening, because, as usual, there is not a shred of evidence to the contrary, no matter how many imbeciles hold up signs and dance around in giant papier-mache heads.

March 6, 2010 , 11:28PM Posted by | Bill Whittle, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Liberalism, Operation Iraqi Freedom | Comments Off on Debunking Stupid Liberal Memes, Part II: “No Blood for Oil!”

“It is Your Future … Do Whatever You Can to Preserve It”

[Reposted — This is as true today as it was back when I originally posted this on another blog back in February of 2006.]

Please take the time to read this entire letter. I believe it is the best view of the current world situation I’ve read AND it is neither biased towards Conservatives or Liberals. Those who take the time to read it to the end, no matter what their political views, will come out with a better understanding of what our country has gone through and what it is going through today.

THE WORLD SITUATION: A LETTER TO MY SONS

This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004.

Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,

As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to.

To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 – 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt – WWII: President Truman – Korean War 1950; President Kennedy -Bay of Pigs (1961); President Kennedy – Vietnam (1961); [1] eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 – 1991); President Clinton’s strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). [2] So be sure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point.

Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let’s examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
New York World Trade Center 2001;
Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We can not fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no pro vocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers? In each case of attacks on US they were Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25 percent

5. Isn’t the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world – German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way – their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. [5]

The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing — by their own pronouncements — killing all of us infidels. I don’t blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don’t clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question – ‘What does losing mean?’ It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world.

The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and can not help them. They will pick off the other non Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn’t matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don’t win, they are finished too, in that they can’t resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast. See the attached article on the French.

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can’t stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort.

If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don’t comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?

This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don’t worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some of us have gone so far out in our criticism of the war and/or our Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn’t because they are disloyal. It is because they just don’t recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media, regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the “humiliating” of some Muslim prisoners – not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but “humiliating” them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense.

If this doesn’t show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned – totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.

Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into all non-Muslims – not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being ‘arrogant’. That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can’t. If we don’t recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone – let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read. If we don’t win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn’t that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don’t have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the “peaceful Muslims”?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.

Love, Dad

June 7, 2009 , 2:18PM Posted by | American History, Dhimmitude, Islam, Jihad, Muslims, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Political Correctness, Terrorism, The Long War | Comments Off on “It is Your Future … Do Whatever You Can to Preserve It”

New Theme Song of the Obama Voter – “Promises Broken”

Full scale retreats are costly. Phased draw downs are a bit less costly. But, the left (and the Obamatrons) insisted that we get out, and get out now… or soon, or rather quickly.

Now, about those bald-faced lies about how ending this Iraq thing was going to provide such a huge savings.

Go back to all the campaign promises, and post-inaugural promises, and all the decisions regarding the budget and bailout and stimulus that were all predicated with this false savings lie…

All one big lie, and it seems most of America bought into it, all of it.

So, where’s the outrage? [ … ]

coldwarrior on March 26, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Upon reading this comment by “coldwarrior” at HotAir in response to this post by Ed Morrissey, “Iraq Will Cost More to Leave than Stay”, a song came to mind:

And every little thing about this tells me
Nothing out there is ever gonna help me
And all these words that I hear spoken
Just promises broken now

The sad thing is that I bet most Obama voters are still clueless to the fact that our Teleprompter President has broken every single one of his campaign promises so far. That’s what happens when you drink the cult Kool-Aid and treat a dirty, filthy corrupt politician whose entire political background is in socialism, communism, Marxism, Black Liberation Theology and dirty Chicago politics as a sort of do-no-wrong perfect messiah.

March 26, 2009 , 10:16AM Posted by | Barack Obama, Economy, Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom, War Effort in Iraq | Comments Off on New Theme Song of the Obama Voter – “Promises Broken”

Obama Lies About Iraq Drawdown

Brilliant post and series by Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette about the lies Barack Obama has been telling about the drawdown of troops in Iraq and how the mass media is covering up for him. Here’s his summary in Diversions (III):

Let’s recap the salient points here:

1. In September, 2008, the 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) – after months of preparation – is ordered to Iraq. (One of two SBCTs that were then scheduled to replace the two currently in Iraq)

2. In February, 2009, President Obama announces his Iraq drawdown/Afghanistan surge – the 5th SBCT will be diverted to Afghanistan instead of Iraq.

3. March, 2009, the DoD announces the 4th SBCT will deploy to Iraq this fall, several months ahead of the original schedule replacing the 5th SBCT in the rotation in order to maintain two Stryker Brigades in Iraq.

For the record, I’m in favor of commanders on the ground getting the forces they need to get the job done. I have no doubt that two Stryker Brigades are needed in Iraq, and others in Afghanistan.

I’m deeply concerned when I see troop rotations “adjusted” in what appears to be an effort to fool the American public. But I appreciate that the Obama administration can do that in plain sight, even providing press releases detailing exactly how they’re doing it.

I’m even more concerned that those efforts – and the ramifications thereof – are obvious to an American media assumed to be independent of the Executive Branch but apparently unconcerned about reporting its activities. Item two above was headline grabbing/TV news lead story material – item three indicates it was a fraud.

One year ago that would have been a hell of a story, don’t you think?

Yep, it would have been. In the comments, someone mentioned that when President Bush decided to send some troops early to Iraq, the mass media and the Democrats were freaking out and made it a HUGE story, whining and wringing their hands that the troops weren’t properly trained yet and President Bush was being completely irresponsible, etc etc etc. But now when Obama does this? Crickets…

Be sure to read the entire series by Greyhawk on this lying BS by Obama.

The Red Pill (III)

Diversions (III)

Diversions (IV)

And here is an absolutely brilliant smackdown of Leftist BS in the comments section by commentor “ECM”:

Instead of posting a bunch of non-sequitirs and revising history, can you just answer the following questions:

1. Are you happy that Obama *isn’t* drawing down troop levels in Iraq?

2. Are you happy that, as it turns out, he LIED to you about this fact?

3. Are you at all bothered that because of this little political shell game, that there are troops that are now UNDER-PREPARED for Afghanistan and are going to be put in harm’s way?

4. Are you at all bothered that because of this little political shell game, that there are troops that are now UNDER-PREPARED for Iraq and are going to be put in harm’s way?

5. Does it even matter if we ARE a bunch of knuckle-dragging, war-profiteering, troglodytes working for Halliburton? Who cares if we’re a bunch of hypocrites?! What difference does it make in the context of what is going on here and now?

Here’s my answers and you tell me if I’m being a ‘pacifist’ or a ‘dissenter’ just because there’s a (D) after the prez’s name:

1. No, actually I’m pissed because a lot of fine men and women (and their families) were expecting them home and/or not expecting to see them leave so early.

2. No, actually I’m pissed because HE FUCKING LIED TO YOU, ME, AND EVERY OTHER AMERICAN IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROPE-A-DOPE AND, APPARENTLY, ABC AT LEAST, WENT RIGHT ALONG FOR THE RIDE.

3. Yes, I’m pissed and upset because he’s going to send under-trained troops into a war zone where, thanks to said under-training, they face worse odds of coming home alive and/or in one piece ALL IN ORDER TO APPEASE BRAINDEAD ASSHOLES LIKE YOU WHO, ALL OF A SUDDEN, DON’T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS AT ALL (since, you know, you’ve been screeching for nearly a decade that you love the troops, but hate the war).

4. See answer 3 plus: we know you hate the troops, hate Bush, hate Iraq, hatehatehatehate and don’t care if another bunch of ‘knuckle-dragging, war-profiteering, troglodytes working for Halliburton’ marches off to an untimely death because you never cared about the troops and ONLY care about your precious Obama (who, incidentally, fucked you over in front of the world!)

5. None of this should matter if you give a damn about our men and women in uniform (which you don’t) because they’re the ones being fucked in this deal, regardless if we’re every bit as bad as you think we are. It doesnt matter how cartoonishly monstrous we are IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS MORE THAN YOUR PRECIOUS OBAMA (who, incidentally, fucked you over in front of the world!)

The ‘best’ part is, he made ALL Americans in general look like the bunch of rubes you’ve been calling us in the ‘Red States’ for the past 8 years and at the expense of our soldiers’ lives, you asshole. And the biggest joke is that, instead of being upset about the little political theater he gave you (before he gave you the hook), you’re mad at us because we don’t want to see the troops take it like you like it.

Posted by ECM at March 9, 2009 04:14 AM

March 10, 2009 , 11:38AM Posted by | Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Iraq, Media Bias, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, War Effort in Iraq | Comments Off on Obama Lies About Iraq Drawdown