Posts Tagged ‘iraq’
Barack Obama: Changing his Changes…you better “Believe” it!
Written by Ron McClure Jr.
Saturday, 28 February 2009 11:14
3 Comments

Not again?! BO promised “change,” but he didn’t make it clear that his policies would be the prime target of these “changes.”

Most of us are still trying to figure out what our new president is all about, and if he stands behind his statements. Well good luck! Apparently he’s still not sure either. In less than a year, Obama has “vowed” to end the war in Iraq three times, with each target date subsequently “changing.”

First, in March of '08 we had his prickly response to former President Clinton’s admonition of Obama’s stance on the Iraq war: “Bill, said Obama's depiction of his longstanding opposition to the war was a ‘fairy tale.’"  Feeling obligated to defend himself, then Democratic Nominee Obama snapped back; declaring that, “Clinton ‘doesn't have any standing to question my position on this issue.’ And he added that, ‘I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused.’"

Next, after winning the Democratic primary and selecting his VP, the Obama camp launched a website – barackobama.com – to publicly display his future  policies; which by the way, included at least one “change” from his previous promises. When addressing the Iraq war, the site showed his “new” promise: “…Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war…Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months,” which would effectively push the date well into 2010.

Now, here’s Obama’s latest installment: “President Barack Obama on Friday promised to end the combat mission in Iraq in 18 months, vowing to follow that by pulling all troops out by the end of 2011.”

So, if your still sizing up your new president, one thing is certain: his promises “change” like the chromatophores of a chameleon.  And you can take that "change" to the (government run) bank!

Incidentally, recent research indicates that a chameleon uses color changes “…as a method of communication, including to make themselves more attractive to potential mates.”

Hmmm? Is our prez a lizard?

 
Donahue and O’Reilly do the ol ‘hard’ shoe
Written by Chad Phillips
Thursday, 27 March 2008 03:53
No Comments

As this video shows, Phil Donahue was at his zany leftist cosmaniacal best when he came on the O'Reilly Factor in February of last year. In his opinion, if you support the war effort then you must also support the wholesale slaughter of our troops, especially when those troops are other people's children.

 
Taking Down Hussein: If Not Us, Who… And When?
Written by Ted West
Wednesday, 26 March 2008 06:08
No Comments

Some of you may have realized that I have little tolerance for liberals, and the following story provides reason enough. . In my argument for why the Iraq war was necessary, I don't include the fact that we we did what no one else could or would – we got rid of one of the worst tyrants in modern history. That's just a side benefit.

Saddam himself was worse than Darfur, worse even than Rwanda, and the reason I say that is that his terror was ongoing and unending, and his methods were so terrible that wanton killing almost pales in comparison. Saddam's was a family business, and his sons had already demonstrated that they were perhaps even better able to carry on their inheritance.

It was so bad that today, when the following was posted on Drudge, I couldn't even get past the headline until I'd had time to steel myself against what I might come upon in the article. And just before I started to read it, I thought about the seemingly endless parade of idiots like Lenny and Snowy, you know, those two Laverne and Shirley rejects who want to ignore reality and continue to claim that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. To borrow Gutfeld's tagline, they truly are worse than Hitler if they believe that, but even though they do, I don't have to countenance their expression of it, much less entertain the equally nonsensical and never ending stupidity that liberals substitute for thought.

So as I read "Saddam-era torture tools in mobile museum of horror…" I got angrier and angrier, not at Saddam Hussein, but at liberals – this less than worthless lot keeping America from being as great as it deserves to be. That's right, I'm saying it – liberals are bad for America. They're bad for anybody, actually, but they are particularly bad for America, and the specifics are too many and too long to get into here.

Only America could have ended this (by the way, please excuse the misspellings, the article was written in British and I chose not to make corrections):

"Gruesome instruments of torture and the personal effects of victims killed by henchmen of dictator Saddam Hussein haunt Iraqis five years after the fall of his brutal regime.

The display, currently on show in Baghdad, is due to travel across the country in "tribute to the thousands of martyrs" murdered when Saddam was in power, former political prisoner Amed Naji al-Badawi said…

Nooses hang from the ceiling, and a wooden coffin-like box containing a mediaeval-looking torture rack on which prisoners were pinned and stretched takes centre stage. Pictures of hangings and bodies are plastered all over the walls…

Badawi, a stout man in his 50s who spent five years in the jails of Saddam's feared 'mukhabarat' secret service because of his alleged support for the Shiite Dawa party… was arrested along with 13 members of his family — and seven of his brothers were killed by Saddam's goons.

Over the past five years Badawi's committee has helped to locate 106 mass graves and the remains of 1,050 men, women and children killed by members of the ousted regime.

The display was set up to mark the 17th anniversary of the start of a Shiite uprising in southern Iraq on March 1, 1991, a day after Saddam's regime agreed to a truce with US-led coalition forces after its defeat in the first Gulf war…

The names of dozens of those victims are inscribed on black banners hung in the museum, next to a portrait of Shiite leader Mohammed Sadek al-Sadr who was killed in 1999. The assassination of the Iraqi Shiite dignitary sparked major riots in Najaf, one of Iraq's holiest cities for Shiite Muslims.

In the middle of the room a single doll wrapped in a white shroud represents children killed during the iron-fisted rule of Saddam. It is surrounded with toys and cheap plastic flowers.

Mothers and widows who have visited the museum have broken down in tears at the sight of this display, Badawi said.

Also on show are cases containing the personal effects of some of Saddam's victims, whose remains or mutilated bodies have been found over the past five years in dozens of mass graves across Iraq.

The artefacts include combs, identity cards, a rosary, a sock caked in soil, a fragment of a pair of spectacles and bloodstained clothes. Arrest warrants signed by Saddam himself are also on view. "

I've omitted the rest. It made me sick, and I didn't want it on my blog – just like I don't want liberals who make me sicker. But I still tolerate them as part of my ceaseless quest to find a rational one… It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it – just like someone had to topple Saddam.