Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘War’

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the anti-war movement these days?

Answer: The attendance at anti-war rallies have decreased significantly.

Has America’s overall foreign policy changed at all? Mmm, not so much. So what else has changed since President Bush left office? Reason.TV explains:

Even as President Obama maintains close to 50,000 troops in Iraq and continues to escalate and expand the war in Afghanistan, the antiwar movement in America continues to shrink (PDF).

So, what happened?

Reason.tv visited two antiwar protests—one left-leaningone libertarian—in an attempt to answer that question. Author and historian Thaddeus Russell and Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty also weigh in.

War, it seems, is a bipartisan venture, which is reflected by the fact that Democrats have a favorable view of Obama’s foreign policy, despite its remarkable similarity to George W. Bush’s foreign policy. And though there have been rumblings of antiwar sentiment from some on the RightRepublicans remain strongly in favor of an interventionist foreign policy.

Although public sentiment is turning against the war in Afghanistan, the always-shifting withdrawal deadlines and the unwillingness to touch defense spending mean that this bipartisan war is likely to continue far into the future.

It is obvious that Democrats (especially young ones) just wanted go out and yell at something, because of their hatred for the previous administration. Now that they have one of their own in the White House, they seem to be struggling with a little case of amnesia. For the sake of our national defense, it is good thing that a majority of Democrats have jumped on the bandwagon that the Republicans have been steering for almost a decade now.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs’ interview on Fox & Friends?

Answer: We got ourselves a question dodger.

I must say, epic question dodging! This is what the American people love about politics. :roll: When you combined President Obama and then-Senator Obama’s stance on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, you get one giant mess. Why? Because there’s way too many contradictions between the two and unfortunately for Robert Gibbs, he has to defend one of Obama’s biggest flip-flops.

After watching the interview above, we all know what’s going on here. Robert Gibbs’ “non-answer” is his answer. This current administration has blamed their predecessor so much that they can’t even give credit when credit is due.  George W. Bush is clearly responsible for the surge and success in Iraq, but Obama finally decided to jump on the bandwagon and continue the support of the surge, which was made apparent when chose to repeat it in Afghanistan.

Props to Gretchen Carlson for not allowing Gibbs to squeak by.

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked the liberal/progressive American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)?

Answer: They are suing the federal government over drones!

You have got to be absolutely kidding me! Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy! I am sorry, but this is almost beyond the point of absurdity.

Jen Dimascio – from Politico – reports:

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the federal government Tuesday to learn the use of unmanned drones for targeted killings by the military and CIA.

“In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings,” the ACLU said in a statement, announcing its action.

[...]

The military and intelligence communities have increasingly relied on Predator and Reaper unmanned drones to capture video imagery and launch deadly missile strikes, particularly lately in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. The Pentagon, especially, continues to purchase more and more drones each year.

According to the ACLU, what the hell should we fight with? Sticks and stones or straws and spitballs? This progressive/liberal organization is officially a complete joke in my eyes now… If it wasn’t already before.

Hey, at least it will make sure certain groups of individuals out there will be happy. Especially these guys:

No offense to the ACLU idiots who decided this case was a good idea to fight, but I think you’re fighting for the wrong side on this one.

Please don’t forget to…

Click to become of a fan of Frisk A Liberal on Facebook!

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked Iraqi jihadis?

Answer: They figured out how to hack U.S. drone video feeds.

This is quite disturbing:

Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.

Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in some of the remotely flown planes’ systems. Shiite fighters in Iraq used software programs such as SkyGrabber — available for as little as $25.95 on the Internet — to regularly capture drone video feeds, according to a person familiar with reports on the matter.

U.S. officials say there is no evidence that militants were able to take control of the drones or otherwise interfere with their flights. Still, the intercepts could give America’s enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under U.S. surveillance.

This issue is very serious, but just as embarrassing. Granted, the picture on the video feed is only a small ‘window’ of what is actually going on, but the problem is that these aircrafts should have had encrypted data links in the first place.

We must always remember that our enemies are not stupid.

Read Full Post »

“December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” – FDR

Click here to read and listen to FDR’s full speech.

Remember:

Sixty-eight years ago today, the Japanese Empire attacked our naval base at Pearl Harbor without warning or a declaration of war.  Within hours, their navy attacked American positions throughout the Pacific, including the Philippines, destroying our outposts and claiming the entire Pacific Ocean as their possession.  With the fortunate exception of several aircraft carriers that had been on an exercise that morning, the US had almost no Pacific Fleet, and many feared an invasion of the West Coast.

The lesson from that war is that appeasement and complacency doesn’t keep one from having to fight a war.  It usually forces one to fight from an extreme disadvantage.  That’s a lesson we have not remembered in dealing with expansionist powers in our own time, even after a second shock like 9/11 after years of complacency in dealing with al-Qaeda.  We’re falling back to treating radical Islamist terrorism like a Law and Order episode, and allowing one of the main drivers of radical Islamist terror, Iran, to arm itself with nuclear weapons with no consequences whatsoever.

How do you learn from your past mistakes? Unfortunately, this is something the United States has always had a tough time with.

“History is a race between education and catastrophe.” – H.G. Wells.

Read Full Post »

Wonder what you would find if you frisked President Obama’s speech he is scheduled to give at West Point to announce his new strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Answer: Is this another photo op?

I am not saying that it is, but it really makes you wonder…

This President is a complete joke right now. Not only was his Asia trip a complete bust, but now he FINALLY decided on a strategy plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan! General McChrystal gave his recommendations back in August and in the meantime President Obama has been dithering around playing golf and hosting parties while it takes him a semester’s time to make a decision. Oh, not to mention our troops are over there without the resources they need to win.

CBS reports:

President Obama will announce his new strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as any troop increase in the region, in a speech next Tuesday at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time at the United States Military Academy at West Point, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters this morning.

In the speech at West Point, which is located 50 miles north of New York City, the president is expected to announce he is deploying between 32,000 and 35,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Gibbs said today that the president has not yet informed him of a final decision.

This is just completely absurd. President Obama already has the decision, but what does he need to do? He needs to notify the Secret Service to get their gear together, Air Force One to get the plane gassed up, and the press to inform them that he has made a decision and bring the cameras!

Unbelievable… He really can’t just inform the people needed to get this plan underway? After all, he has already wasted three months of the year deadline proposed by General McChystral. It’s obvious that Obama feels the need to waste another week to setup an epic speech at West Point, but don’t worry… His beloved teleprompter will surely be there.

*UPDATE 1*

Oh look! I’m not the only one upset about this issue:

Mr. Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.

A “period of hiatus” in Washington – and a lack of clear direction – had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.

Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.

But Mr. Ainsworth is the first Government minister to express in public what amounts to personal criticism of the US president’s leadership over the conflict which has so far cost 235 British lives.

Even America’s socialist friend (Britain) is giving President Obama a big slap in the face over his war delay.

Props to Mr. Ainsworth.

*UPDATE 2*

Do I need to say more?:

Read Full Post »

Obama-Question-Afghanistan

Wonder what you would find if you frisked Obama’s plan on Afghanistan?

Answer: Once again, back to the drawing board.

I think most (smart) people realized that foreign policy would be a problem for Barack Obama. By smart people, I mean those who had their noggins present in reality and realized you cannot talk every country into peace no matter how well President Obama gives speeches. Although, that’s why he picked Joe Biden (that nobody knows of) because of his masterful insight on foreign policy… Haha, it’s almost laughable.

The latest on Obama and Afghanistan:

President Barack Obama is still working on his big decision: what to do about the Afghanistan war? On Wednesday, he held another Situation Room strategy session with his national security team. The day before, press secretary Robert Gibbs, said that Obama was pondering four options, without describing these alternatives. Media reports had suggested that each one involved deploying more troops. But hours following this latest AfPak gathering, AP reported that Obama had rejected all four options, and the news leaked that the US ambassador in Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, had sent two classified cables to Washington noting he was deeply concerned about dispatching additional troops to Afghanistan until the government of President Hamid Karzai demonstrates that it’s serious about addressing corruption and incompetence.

They have yet to find that groove. In past weeks, the White House has insisted that it will not pull out of Afghanistan, yet it has simultaneously noted that it can only succeed if it has a partner that “is free of corruption and transparent.” (What happens if there is no such partner? The White House won’t say.) The administraion has set up a daunting to-do list in Afghanistan—guaranteeing there is a working and honest government, an effective security force, and no safe haven for terrorists—while stating, as Gibbs put it, “our commitment can’t be forever.” (Those missions could take close-to-forever to accomplish.) And when Gibbs was asked if Obama has made good on the promise he stated in March to set “clear benchmarks” on anti-corruption efforts for the Afghan government, the press secretary could only reply that “conversations are being had.” But by defending the election process in Afghanistan, the White House seemed to be stepping from routine political spin toward public denial of reality.

The honest policy wonks in and outside the administration who focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, even as they disagree with each other, usually say there’s no telling if one particular course of action will work. The experts have nothing but best guesses. Which makes Obama’s decision all the more difficult. But one thing’s for sure: Afghanistan is a political minefield for Obama. Many within his own party don’t want him to deploy more troops; Republicans are looking for opportunities to blast his handling of the war. And the public is torn. As Obama threads both the policy and the political needles, he and his aides will have to ponder how best to persuade the voters they are proceeding with eyes wide open about what’s occurring on the ground in this far-away place. Especially after the previous administration, Obama will only be able to win support for his policy—whatever it turns out to be—if the public perceives it is reality-based. Given how discouraging the reality is in Afghanistan, this will be one of the most daunting tasks of Obama’s presidency.

Mr. Obama, I thought you said Afghanistan is the war of necessity? You’ve had a plan (created by the general YOU picked) on the table for months and still no word.

Side-Note: Unbelievable… I guess in Obama’s eyes it is okay to be playing politics rather than address the important issue of our troops in harm’s way without the resources they need to succeed.

I sense another broken promise coming…

Read Full Post »

Obama-Vs-Fox-News

ROUND ONE: Ding! Ding!

Anita Dunn on the attack:

Oh! Mr. Beck knocks her down with one punch:

ROUND TWO: It’s getting good.

David Axelrod steps up swinging… and missing:

Karl Rove steps up and back hands Mr. Axelrod:

ROUND THREE: Ms. Helen Thomas takes the ring!

Rahm Emanuel thinks he can hang with the big boys:

Helen Thomas (of all people) comes in and finishes them off! POW!:

It's on folks!

It's on folks!

HAHA!

Take a look at all the failed attempts by the White House to undermine FOX News as a legitimate news organization. It’s not even credible!

Notice how they throw these harmless jabs on CNN… The NEWS organization that thought it was credible to use Wikipedia as a source to assassinate someone’s character! Or fact checks comedic skits. Does that not ‘promote’ a perspective??

You ask: Why is Obama and his White House attacking FOX News? Well, here you go:

The truth is that Obama has lost the public debate on health-care reform, and he’s left with only the option of slamming something through Congress that will be incredibly unpopular, and then blame its unpopularity on Fox News. That’s undignified, Nixonian, and futile, all at the same time.

Side-Note: If Obama was smart, he would listen to Helen Thomas. Yup, I said it. Haha.

Read Full Post »

McChrystal

Wonder what you would find if you frisked President Obama over the issues in Afghanistan?

Answer: He doesn’t have a clue.

It’s not a good thing when one of your top generals threatens resigning, because you won’t give him the resources needed to win. So while Obama is sitting in his little oval office playing politics or going to New York City for an all out media blitz (again), the situation in Afghanistan isn’t getting any easier:

Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn’t ready for it.

In the last two weeks, top administration leaders have suggested that more American troops will be sent to Afghanistan, and then called that suggestion “premature.” Earlier this month, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that “time is not on our side”; on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged the public “to take a deep breath.”

In Kabul, some members of McChrystal’s staff said they don’t understand why Obama called Afghanistan a “war of necessity” but still hasn’t given them the resources they need to turn things around quickly.

Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy that the McChrystal they know would resign before he’d stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy.

“Yes, he’ll be a good soldier, but he will only go so far,” a senior official in Kabul said. “He’ll hold his ground. He’s not going to bend to political pressure.”

The amateur in Obama stood out clearly during his unsuccessful Sunday morning media blitz. So far, it seems Obama’s foreign policy in Afghanistan is failing. Take a look and compare how the strategies were implemented in Iraq and Afghanistan:

For Afghanistan, the process to decide on a course change began in March of this year, when Bruce Reidel was tasked to assess the situation. This produced the much-heralded yet vague “AfPak” assessment. Then, in May, General David McKiernan was fired and replaced by General McChrystal, who took command in June. General McChrystal’s assessment hit President Obama’s desk at the end of August, almost three months after he took command. And yet now in the last half of September, the decision on additional forces has yet to be submitted to the administration.

Contrast this with Iraq in the fall of 2006. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was fired just one day after the elections in early November. The Keane-Kagan plan for Iraq was submitted to President Bush shortly afterward, and encompassed both the assessment of the situation and the recommended course of action, including the recommended number of troops to be deployed to deal with the situation. General David Petraeus replaced General George Casey in early February 2007, and hit the ground running; the surge strategy was in place, troops were being mustered to deploy to Iraq, and commanders on the ground were preparing for and executing the new orders. The first of the surge units began to arrive in Iraq only weeks later, in March.

Reminder to Obama… you are the leader of the Free World sir, so act like it. Show America your an actual leader and not the amateur senator with hardly any experience under his belt. Dodging questions during liberal media interviews and sitting on the issue doesn’t help out those already fighting overseas! Trust your Generals and lets finish this thing!

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers