Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Obama: Ethnic cleansing is Conflict Resolution

“There was ethnic cleansing in Bagdad that actually brought the violence down.”—Barack Obama

I have to admit that I was riveted to Laura Ingraham’s show this morning. She was dissecting the Terry Moran interview of Barack Obama, the first ‘sit down’ interview of the presidential candidate since his trip to Bagdad.

The show was riveting quite simply because the statements that Obama was making were stunning—and not due to his brilliance, wit, or charisma. No, they were stunning in what they revealed about how the conniving, snot nosed pol thought he could wiggle and squirm his way out of an uncomfortable spot and spin his errors into examples of his brilliance.

One must remember that this is “Mr. Change”, the would-be messiah who will free America of the grip of the years of Bush “mistakes”, liberate Americans from the war in Iraq, fight global terrorism, reset the economy, protect our country, redistribute wealth in a more just manner, etc.

But in the interview, Obama was asked about whether or not the surge was successful, to which he replied that there was no way that he could have anticipated that there would be a convergence of events, such as the Sunni leaders turning against al Qaida, and the Shiite leaders standing down, and our “wonderful troops” performing brilliantly to combat the insurgents. He then states that if the Sunnis and Shiites had not done what they had done, then the surge would have probably failed and he would have been right.

The key to these statements is how Obama cannot simply state that he was wrong: no, indeed, he instead assumes that the American public is too stupid to analyze the illogical response to the question and come to the correct conclusion that he was wrong, he knows he was wrong, but he cannot allow the acquisition of new information to change his mind or shape his policy!

You see, instead of admitting he was wrong, he creates a hypothetical (and historically false) supposition about conditions that might have happened (but didn’t) that, had they occurred, would have made him right. It’s like saying “I could have been right if things had been different.” No shit, Sherlock! But that’s not what happened, is it?

So he instead implies that the success was purely coincidental! The Sunnis just happened to decide to attack al Qaida. The Shiites just happened to stand down and stop murdering their fellow citizens. Oh, and by the way…there were some American soldiers running around in circles who just got lucky and didn’t make things worse.

The truth is, however, that US commanders had employed a brilliant counter insurgency strategy that worked. Liberals, listen up: it’s OK to be proud of the fact that the US, unlike other military forces in the world, actually learns from its past mistakes, such as the military strategy employed during Viet Nam, has refined its techniques and has employed them successfully in Iraq. Abu Graib and a few other minor distractions aside, the US military policy of engaging the Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders has brought them around to our side. US pressure on the Maliki government to strike a reasonable and just deal with all the ethnicities in Iraq has worked. And the refusal to state a timeline to exit sent a message that the US would not turn tail. Finally, recognizing that there were too few boots on the ground (a mistake we can place squarely on the shoulders of Donald Rumsfeld) and rectifying that mistake in the strategy known as the surge was the right thing to do. It provided enough power and security to reassure the Sunnis and Shiites that the US forces would provide them cover while they confronted the (Muslim) foreign terrorists who were murdering their citizens.

So, no matter what your opinion about the origin of the war, the US broke Iraq, and Bush has been dedicated to doing what he can to leaving the country in as good a condition as possible.
Obama, on the contrary, seems so determined to win office and power that he has no qualms at all with leaving the country as a morass of violence, injustice, and a haven for al Qaida—and I know the argument that al Qaida was not in Iraq until we invaded, but history shows that Bin Laden and his crew announced their determination to make Iraq their primary battleground, in order to hand the US a painful defeat and win prestige around the world. They may not have been there in the beginning, but there were ordered there en masse by their general, Bin Laden, who in effect turned that war into his cause célèbre. Thus, victory for the US would help to restore of the US prestige that Obama claims to want to recover, would send a message to its allies (such as the beleaguered Afghan government) that the US will honor its commitments and is willing to sacrifice alongside the citizens of those countries. Oh, and not least of all—a US victory in Iraq would also be a significant victory over al Qaida—strategically, tactically, and morally.

The Obama doctrine, on the other hand, would send the message to the world that the US will only look out for its own interests and—if the going gets tough—will abandon the field faster than the French in Indochina. You can at least say that Obama is consistent in his willingness to abandon America’s friends: his “use ‘em and leave ‘em” policy also extends to our good allies in Colombia, with whom he does not believe we should have a free trade agreement until they prove their commitment to human rights—oh, but thank you for putting Colombian lives at risk to save our hostages.

Viva Uribe! (but no free trade for you!)

Pardon me while I digress.

So here is Obama’s conundrum: how do you keep the far left happy (they will only settle for unconditional surrender and retreat in Iraq), while moving to the center (who would like to see the US leave victorious), without admitting that the heretofore stated policies are a recipe for defeat?

Ah, repackage the war! Brilliant. And thus, we have the following illogical statements.
In the same interview, Obama stated that “Iraq is a part of the war on terror”, but then said that “this war {in Iraq} distracts us from the war on terror.” What?
Allow me to create a silly hypothetical. It’s rather cartoonish, but hey, if it wasn’t, the liberals wouldn’t be able to understand it. So let’s pretend it’s a Hollywood film and see if they can follow the logic.

Let’s suppose for a moment that there was a terror attack in Gotham city, and the local police went after the perpetrator of the crime—Albert Kayda, but we’ll just call him “Al”. This led them to one part of the city, perhaps a very seedy neighborhood, in Al was able to get support from the local community and hide from law enforcement.

Meanwhile, in another neighborhood, a gang of thugs sympathetic to the cause of the original terrorists continued making threats of violence against the city and even tried to assassinate the Police Chief. So the Police go into that neighborhood to clean out that haven of evil-doers.
Now, pretend that the original group of terrorists decided that they wanted to humiliate the police by defeating them in their battle against the second group of criminals. So Al sends his minions into that neighborhood to fight against the police.

Along comes candidate for mayor, Barry Bonehead, and he declares that the new struggle is “part of the battle against terrorism” but “is a distraction from the battle against the terrorists”, and his plan would be to leave that neighborhood and go have a sit-down talk with Al.

This, in a childish nutshell, is the situation we’re in. The current Chief called for additional boots on the ground to win the raging gun battle, and it is now clear that this was the right move.
So how would candidate Barry explain his erroneous position? With the following brilliant statement:

“No one has a crystal ball…if you did you could just hire the guy with a crystal ball.”—Barack Obama.

Now, we come to the most startling of Obama’s statements. While trying to explain away the US victory over the terrorists and insurgents, Obama said that “there was ethnic cleansing in Bagdad that actually brought the violence down.”


What was that? Are you saying that ethnic cleansing is an effective tool for conflict resolution?

Stop the trial of Serbian war criminals, everyone! The Obama Policy from here on will be to legitimize ethnic cleansing, as long as it reduces violence.

Hey there! Sudan, you hear that?

Yo! Muggabe in Zimbabwe, did you get that message?

Ethnic cleansing can reduce violence.
When America is victorious, it's an accident.
We will not stand by our friends and allies, unless they respect human rights.
The war on terror is a distraction from the war on terror.

Yep. Obama represents CHANGE all right.

Friday, July 11, 2008

Black Holes and race baiting

You know, it’s hard to get work done when there is so much stupidity in the world.

Folks, here we go again. As I have said before, the new Obama-era is going to trigger a landslide of bizarre behavior from blacks, and here is just the latest example.

While in a Dallas city council meeting, a councilman was discussing how paperwork entering a department was getting lost, and he described it by saying “it’s like central collection is becoming a black hole.” Scientifically a “black hole” is a collapsed star whose gravity is so strong, nothing can escape. No light is emitted, and thus the object is totally dark, hence "black."

Two black councilmen sitting near him were offended by the reference to a "black hole", which they believed was clearly a “racist” comment. And, they demand an apology.

“In this day and age, with diversity, you don’t go around making that kind of comment.”

Hey, it’s part of God’s creation: God must be a RACIST!

The commissioner explained it this way. “It’s like angel cake, and devil cake. If it’s white, it’s angel cake. If it’s black, it’s devil cake. If you barter, that’s good. But if you Jew someone down, that’s bad. ‘Hey, I thought it was alright!’ NO, NO IT’S NOT!”

Oooh, great logic!

Now, let’s be real about this. There very well may be some phrases that are anachronistic vestiges of the era of Slavery, and therefore could conceivably perpetuate a discriminatory meaning. "That's the pot calling the kettle black" is one of the phrases. "Cracking a whip" is another that always makes me a little uncomfortable in "diverse" settings. The other day, a black coworker used the phrase regarding the white project manager. I cringed...should I have been offended? Was he calling her a "massa"? A "cracker"? I don't think so. I think he was just using a common idiom and had no hidden agenda.

But of course, it's ok, because he's black. What if SHE had used that phrase?

Well, this is so irritating; I’m just going “to call a Spade a Spade.” (is that an offensive term? Doesn't it just refer to cards?)

Commissioner Wiley is either one ignorant dumb ass, or is a classic race-baiter.

Maybe we should put him on a “BLACK LIST”. I hope this issue does not leave the other commissioner with a "BLACK EYE".

It might even put a "BLACK MARK" on his record.

I guess it's racist for doctors to carry a "BLACK BAG".

We need to redefine the term "IN THE BLACK" for your budget: it used to be a good thing, but now it must be racist.

Why? Because in this day and age, "we have diversity."

This most recent stupidity takes place just days after Jesse Jackson blasted Obama for "talking down to black people", making Jackson want to "cut his nuts off". See, apparently it's degrading for a black candidate to speak to other blacks and say that they need to take some responsibility for their own actions. Quit talking down to them, Barry! They can't take care of their own problems, don't you know? They are too busy "driving while black"!

And then there was the article from Brittain, in which it was decided that children who say "yuck" to ethnic food they are not familiar with are "racist". That's right!!! If you introduce your child to jerk chicken or boiled mustard greens, and the child doesn't like it--the child is a RACIST!

That's like saying the child is a racist if he is scared of the dark!