Politics

As expected, Russia defied the denunciating cries from the U.S. and E.U., and officially recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which threatens to dismantle a democratic, pro-West ally. In response to what amounts to Western whining, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s said,

“We’re not scared of anything, including the prospect of a Cold War…”

His bravado demonstrates a newfound Russian confidence in their position of power on the world stage. They recognize that after five-plus years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. is stretched to the limit. Furthermore, the E.U. (and NATO for that matter) doesn’t have the balls to jump into an engagement with Russia. So, the Western powers are talking a good game, but diplomacy without a “big stick” to back it up is nothing more than words and saber-rattling. Recognizing the West’s emptiness, as illustrated by Konstantin Kosachev, head of Russia’s international affairs committee, told the Interfax news agency, that Western criticism of Russia’s actions will

“remain at the level of political declarations, which will quickly be consigned to the historical archive.”

Still, Russia is feeling a bit of an economic pinch due to its role in the present conflict. Per the WSJ, investors are shying away from Russian investments, pushing share prices to two-year lows:

“The benchmark RTS stock index finished the session on Tuesday 4.2% lower, at 1579.12, its lowest point since late 2006. It has also eroded the value of the ruble, which closed at 29.86 against a managed dollar-euro currency basket, down 1.5% since the start of the war early this month.”

Remember, this only represents a temporary shift and results from investors’ uncertainty. If the West doesn’t start backing-up its rhetoric with action, Russia will bounce back and become even stronger.

Less than two weeks after Pervez Musharraf resigned as the president of Pakistan, there’s a rift within the Parliament. The Pakistan Muslim League led by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif withdrew its support from the coalition government led by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), formerly led by the murdered Benazir Bhutto. Sharif broke with the PPP after the ruling party refused to reinstate the judges dismissed by Musharraf after imposing martial law last year. It seems the PPP’s new leader and presidential hopeful, Asif Ali Zardari, is afraid the judges might overturn an amnesty granted by Musharraf that cleared him of corruption charges.

(The more things change, the more they stay the same.)

The long anticipated democratic VP selection has been made as Obama chooses Washington insider, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, over others who could have echoed his message of change. Of course, Biden, a 30-year senator and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, will give Obama some foreign policy clout in the election. Still, I think in selecting Biden, Obama is admitting that he lacks the experience he needs to be president. The McCain campaign has already pounced on this idea in the following statement:

“There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama’s lack of experience than Joe Biden. Biden has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be President.”

And what does Joe Biden think of his new “boss”? During his failed presidential bid last year, Biden described Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Notwithstanding the racial slam, he basically says that Obama is all form and no substance, which is just the argument McCain is making against Obama.

So, what impact will the Biden selection have on the upcoming election? According to WaPo, not much:

Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as his running mate is unlikely to shake-up the presidential horse race. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll completed last night, three-quarters of voters said picking Biden would not sway their votes one way or the other. And about as many said they would be more apt to support Obama with Biden on the ticket as said the choice would make them less likely to vote Democratic on Election Day (13 to 10 percent).” (emphasis mine)

The bottom line is you can’t tout a message of change while sticking with the status quo.

MORE: Michelle Malkin; Hot Air: here and some interesting info on Biden’s ties to lobbyists here; The American Pundit; Webloggin; Flopping Aces; RedState

Negotiators for the U.S. and Iraq have finally come to an agreement on the disposition of American forces in Iraq. The new security deal will require U.S. forces to leave Iraq cities and towns by next summer as a prelude to a complete withdrawal by 2011. In the meantime, the U.S. troops will reside in bases outside the populated areas it vacated. President Bush is expected to accept the agreement, but it still needs to pass through several layers of Iraqi bureaucracy , so who knows?

Although, I don’t think Bush is really too happy with the concessions he’s had to make, I’m looking forward to a U.S. drawdown. However, I would have liked to see a SOFA agreement and the permanent stationing of U.S. forces in Iraq, a goal I think the President was shooting for, too. Still, Iraq is a a sovereign state and can (and should) manage its own affairs. If they want us to leave, we should. I’m interested to see what happens in the areas we vacate. As we exit and larger areas are left to Iraqi control, will we see the terrorists move back in? Will we see Iran attempt to achieve control by fueling a new insurgency?

If things get tough for Iraq after America leaves, who are they gonna call for help?

Coming off an inferior performance at the Saddleback debate, the Obama camp is saying McCain must have “cheated” because he seemed so well-prepared.

Maybe McCain seemed so well-prepared, because he simply is…

and Obama is not.

MORE: Hot Air; RedState

Not surprisingly, Russia continues to defy the international community by reneging on the ceasefire agreement and refusing to pull-out of Georgia. In fact, Russia is digging in, building ramparts around tanks and posing sentries on a hill in central Georgia about 30 miles from the capital of Tbilisi. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice observed,

“From my point of view … the Russians are perhaps already not honoring their word.”

Perhaps? Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, made it pretty clear what they intended to do when he reported that although Presiddent Mr. Medvedev had signed the cease-fire agreement and ordered its implementation, Russian troops wouldn’t withdraw until Moscow is satisfied its forces have taken the necessary effective security measures to protect the interests of the breakaway provinces.

So what are the Russians up to? It’s plain top see that Russia is simply diverting attention while it solidifies its hold on the breakaway territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Earlier today, Russian army units and separatist fighters in Abkhazia took control of 13 villages and the Inguri hydropower plant. So far, Abkhaz officials couldn’t be reached for comment. Furthermore, Lavrov said Russia would also strengthen its peacekeeping contingent in South Ossetia. (translation: Russia will absorb South Ossetia).

Still, from his ranch in Texas, President Bush said,

“A major issue is Russia’s contention that the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia may not be a part of Georgia’s future. These regions are a part of Georgia and the international community has repeatedly made clear that they will remain so.”

I think the Russians have a different idea, Mr. President. They’ve made it very clear by their words and actions that Georgia can forget about South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

And with each day that passes, Russia tightens its grip. Are you watching America? E.U.? Georgia’s next!

MORE: Hot Air; Flopping Aces; Little Green Footballs; Neoconservative? Moi?; Political Pistachio; Right Wing Nut House

An South Ossetia gunman robbed two U.N. officials at gunpoint, taking their SUVs, while Russian soldiers watched. This is what the situation has deteriorated to, as the Russians refuse to withdraw from the Georgian city of Gori. On top of that, Russia is obviously allowing Ossetia irregulars to operate freely within the Georgian borders despite stating they would execute anyone found marauding.

(I guess government sanctioned marauding is okay)

After clobbering Georgia for five days the Russians declared a provisional cease-fire. Agreeing to a deal brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the Russian’s confirm Georgia’s sovereignty, but not its territorial integrity. (Which means that Russia may decide at some future date to amend the sovereign country’s borders.) Georgia also agreed to the deal with a change regarding status talks for the territories.

The clear winner here are the Russians who gave the U.S. a black eye as we more-or-less just stood by and watched these events unfold. I remember a year ago as the Russians began getting chummy with Venezuela’s Chavez, pondering a new cold war; it looks like we have it.

And if all this wasn’t bad enough, we have this ridiculous statement by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (h/t: Hot Air):

It was a bad crisis for the world. It required tough words but also a smart approach to call on the international community to step in. And I’m very, very happy that the Senator’s [Obama's] request for a ceasefire has been complied with by President Medvedev. (emphasis mine)

This is one of those “Howard Dean scream” moments. Incidentally, at the time Kaine made this statement, the Russians were still firing on Georgia. So much for your VP chances, Mr. Governor.

Idiot!

Russia is now an invasion force, occupying the town of Gori, about 60 kilometers from Tbilisi, the capitol of Georgia. In the western part of the country, Russia crossed the border out of Abkhazia and into the Georgian town of Zugdidi. Russian troops have also taken Senaki, Georgia’s most modern military base. Although he Zugdidi and Gori occupations couldn’t be confirmed independently, it appears that Russia has effectively cut the country in half. President Bush pressed Moscow to accept an immediate cease-fire and pull back its troops and conceded that this appears to be an attempt to unseat Georgia’s president, Mikhail Saakashvili.

Appealing for help from the West, Saakasvilli said, “We are in the process of the invasion, occupation and annihilation of an independent, democratic country” and that Russia’s ultimate goal is regime change. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin confirmed a desire for regime change in a statement, earlier today:

“To quote Ronald Reagan: Somoza [Nicaragua's former U.S.-backed president, Anastasio Somoza] is a scoundrel, but he’s our scoundrel, and we’ll protect him” … “The world has changed since the Cold War” and the U.S. won’t be able to protect its new “scoundrel”, Saakasvilli.

Well, you can’t get any plainer than that! Is the West going to sit idle while Russia erases a democracy?

MORE: Hot Air; Right Wing Nuthouse; RedState; Flopping Aces

Despite pulling out of South Ossetia to avoid an all-out war with Russia, the Georgians are finding themselves facing a second Russian-backed assault in another separatist territory. Early Sunday morning, Abkhazia, located in Northern Georgia on the Black Sea, launched an attack on Georgian troops with the aid of Russian heavy bombers and 4,000 Russian troops. It also appears that Russian warships off the Georgian coast are attempting to enforce an economic embargo and have already turned two supply ships away.

It appears that Russia is acting as an opportunistic agent in this crisis and attempting to achieve a quick, decisive victory over Georgia’s democratic ambitions by absorbing South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Their maintenance of “peacekeepers” in the region for the past decade has provided a convenient excuse for this intervention. The timing of the attack to coincide with the Olympic Games in Beijing has given them sufficient cover from international scrutiny for the first couple of days. If they can bring this crisis to a quick end, they may just keep the initiative.

Incidentally, in the early 1990s, Abkhazia backed by Russian volunteers fought a brutal war for independence after an equally brutal Georgian crackdown which drove out 250,000 ethnic Georgians (approximately half the population).

Quid pro quo?

MORE: Little Green Footballs; Power Line; Right Wing Nuthouse

UPDATE: Russia says it’s ready to end hostilities as Georgia states its readiness to withdrawal troops from South Ossetia. While the U.N. Security Council met a fourth time (whooptidoo!), Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin stated that Moscow is “ready to put an end to the war”. However, Russia doesn’t appear to be willing to agree to an immediate refuses to observe a cease fire.

The Georgian parliament has declared war against Russia for the next 15 days as the civilian death toll in the breakaway republic of South Ossetia surpasses 2,000. For the third time in two days the U.N. Security Council has met to discuss the situation, but (typically) have not been able to agree on a solution; however, several nations including the U.S. and U.K. have called for a cease fire. President Bush spoke to Russian President Madvedev and warned that their bombing campaign marked “a dangerous escalation” of the crisis and called for an immediate halt to hostilities. Medvedev said only a complete withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia would ease tensions, and further stipulates that Georgia sign an agreement never to use force in its separatist territories again.

So, what’s the deal?

South Ossetia is a mountainous province located in northern Georgia that shares its northern border with the Russian republic of North Ossetia.

South Ossetia enjoyed broad autonomy within Soviet Georgia and first claimed independence in 1989. It has run its own affairs without international recognition since breaking away from the Tbilisi-based Georgian government during a bloody 1991-1992 conflict that killed more than 1,000 people and displaced tens of thousands.

Authorities held a referendum in 1992 proclaiming the province’s independence, but it went unnoticed by the international community, leaving the region in limbo. South Ossetians voted overwhelmingly for independence in a second referendum in November 2006.

Russia has peacekeepers in South Ossetia, but Tbilisi accuses them of siding with the separatists. Since coming to power in 2004, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has vowed to bring South Ossetia and another breakaway region, Abkhazia, back under Georgian control.

Russia formally recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia as parts of Georgia, but it sides with their separatist leaders in disputes with the Georgian government and has granted many of their residents Russian citizenship. (h/t: AP)

So, what’s at stake?

Georgia is a staunch U.S. ally and emerging democracy. They’ve sent troops to Iraq to fight the insurgents. They also aspire to join NATO and the EU. Of course, Moscow opposes both of these goals. Its pro-Western stance has angered Russia as Moscow considers the entire region within its own sphere of influence.

I believe it’s important to support Georgia. They’re an important ally and the steps we take right now will demonstrate our level of commitment. Still, we recently supported Kosovo’s independence despite Russian objections; are we really in a position to challenge South Ossetia’s claim to independence although they’re likely to follow Moscow?

MORE: Hot Air; Neoconservative? Moi?; Political Pistachio

President Bush’s arrival in China to attend the Olympics opening ceremony comes on the heals of some pretty harsh words concerning the country’s dismal human rights record. Speaking to a group of students and business leaders in Bangkok, Thailand, Bush said that cooperation with China on economic ties, negotiations with North Korea and relations with Taiwan put the U.S. in “a better position to be honest and direct on other issues,” like human rights.

“We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly and labor rights, not to antagonize China’s leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential.”

Of course, many are criticizing the President for politicizing the Olympic games, while others are saying he could have sent a stronger message by foregoing the opening ceremonies altogether.

Of course, a presidential boycott of the olympics is simply ridiculous. I believe President Bush is absolutely doing the right thing by bringing attention to China’s restrictions on individual liberty.

So, what is China’s reaction?

Qin Gang, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry said that China has

“consistently advocated dialogue and exchange on the basis of mutual respect and equality [and] We firmly oppose any use of human rights or religious issues to interfere in internal affairs.”

Right! I’m sure the Tibetans would argue otherwise!

The Arab’s in the Middle East prefer Barack Obama become the next president. Commenting on the senator’s recent visit to Amman, Jordan-based political analyst, Radna Habib, said,

“The Arab Street definitely prefers the Democrat to become the next American president.”

Why?

Because they see Obama as more sympathetic to their causes, the primary being the elimination of Israel. After his visit, Obama commented that with him as the next president…

“people were more optimistic about our ability to solve [the Arab-Israeli] problem and how important it is to addressing broader problems in the region.”

That’s because the Arabs see Obama pressing Israel to make concessions to force peace. Concessions that if beneficial to the Arab nations, certainly won’t be in the Jews best interest.

And I think that’s exactly what Obama would do!

(Remember that)

It can be said that the friend of my enemy is also my enemy. So, once again, let’s review the short-list of Obama endorsers:

• Middle East Arabs
• Kim Jong-Il
• Castro
• Hamas
• Hugo Chavez
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
• The New Black Panthers
• Louis Farrakhan

If Barack Obama is the right candidate for our enemies, he can’t be the right candidate for America!

The Obama European Tour says it had originally planned to visit wounded American servicemen and women at the U.S. Army hospital at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, but scrubbed it for political reasons. The European leg of Senator Obama’s overseas trip, not considered a Congressional Delegation (as was his trip to the Middle East) is funded solely by his campaign and he felt that visiting American wounded would appear to be viewed as political opportunism.

Obama advisors explained,

“We learned from the Pentagon [Wednesday] night that the visit would be viewed … as a campaign event. Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event…” [therefore,] “The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign”

The McCain camp staunchly disagreed and criticized Obama’s decision:

“Barack Obama is wrong,” … “It is never ‘inappropriate’ to visit our men and women in the military.”

For Barack Obama, it’s inappropriate to do something that he can’t get any political mileage out of. He was afraid of the appearance of politicizing the troop visit and didn’t want the headache. Of course, he could have paid a visit to Landstuhl without cameras and reporters in tow. He could have respected the servicemen and women with a private visit to thank them for their service and sacrifice. But, no, that would be inappropriate.

So, instead of visiting American wounded, Obama remained in Berlin.

(and slept in, no doubt).

MORE: The American Pundit; RedState; Wake up America; Hot Air: here and here

UPDATE: McCain blasts Obama on canceling troop visit!

The Russian government-propped Izvestia newspaper reported that crews from Russian strategic bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons have surveyed sites in Cuba for possible refueling stopovers. If the Russians made such a move it would once again bring Soviet nuclear weapons within 90-miles of the U.S. Gen. Norton Schwartz, the presumptive Air Force chief of staff, warned that regardless of an actual payload, the presence of nuclear-capable planes in Cuba would be “something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line for the United States of America.”

Of course, the Soviet government denies the Izvestia report, calling it “disinformation” and a “media hoax”. However, considering the newspaper’s government affiliation, what are the chances it could get away with printing such a volatile story? A more likely explanation is that Russia is sending a subtle warning to the U.S. against the missile defense shield we’re building in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Despite an American diplomatic presence for the first time in 30 years, Iran would not yield any ground in its uranium enrichment program.

(this is a surprise?)

So, what does the EU (+1 American) delegation do? Why, give the Iranians more time to reconsider, of course. This was not an ultimatum, mind you, because the delegation did not threaten more sanctions or military action should Iran fail to capitulate.

The U.S. response to Iran’s lack of cooperation hinted at more sanctions. Per State Department Spokesman, Sean McCormack:

“We hope the Iranian people understand that their leaders need to make a choice between cooperation, which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only led to further isolation [i.e. more sanctions].”

It appears the only ultimatum presented at the meeting came from the man who we thought was only there to listen. When it was his turn to speak, Undersecretary of State, William Burns, delivered a simple message to his Iranian counterpart:

“Iran must suspend uranium enrichment to have negotiations involving the United States.”

Of course, by participating in this meeting the U.S. is negotiating with Iran and Burns statement would be considered a direct one-on-one negotiation. An action the U.S. said it would not undertake.

The Iranian response was definitive (and predictable). According to Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation,

“Suspension–there is no chance for that.”

This should come a surprise to no one. This is the first face-to-face meeting between Iran and the U.S. government since the Shah was in power. Had Iran given in to the demands of the delegation it would appear to be due to the American presence and they would lose tremendous face. The result of their rebuff?

Advantage: Iran.

The U.S. is sending Undersecretary of State, William Burns, a senior diplomat, as part of a European Union delegation meeting with Iran’s top nuclear official, Saeed Jalili. The topic of discussion? An incentive package for Iran to persuade them to stop their uranium enrichment program.

State Department Spokesman, Sean McCormack, says Burns will listen to what Iran has to say, but will not engage in one-on-one discussions with the Iranian negotiator. He will also ensure that Iran understands that the U.S. will not engage in direct talks with Iran until it suspends its enrichment program.

(really?)

How do you suppose he’s going to hammer home this message while not engaging in a one-on-one discussion? Maybe he’s going to pass a note through one of the other delegation members?

I don’t care what you do or don’t say Undersecretary, what you’re telling Iran is that if you hold out long enough, the U.S. will give in.

Nice work Mr. President.

Barack Obama says he’s sure the U.S has moved into a recession and the country needs another stimulus package to bring us out:

“I have little doubt that we’ve moved into recession at this point, and the sooner we can get money into people’s pockets, the sooner that we can stabilize the housing market, and the sooner that we can send a message to the markets that we’re serious about creating an energy policy that will create greater energy efficiency over the next decade or so, I think the sooner we’re going to get our fundamentals right.”

Forget economics. Forget that the definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, an event that hasn’t occurred in the last six years (our last recession was March to November 2001)! Forget all that, we’re in a recession because “The Obama” has declared it is so. And what does he propose? Another stimulus package! How will he fund it? He wants to raise taxes, so no tax cut. I guess we’ll be borrowing more money from the Chinese! That’s it! Shore-up the economy by increasing our world debt.

With insurgent violence increasing in Afghanistan, the Bush administration’s top military official made a surprise visit to Pakistan. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pressed Pakistani leaders to crack down on the Islamic militants moving freely about the country’s tribal areas. These militants are crossing unimpeded into Afghanistan to carry out terrorist attacks and destabilizing both countries. Mullen said,

“That border is more porous than it was a year ago.” [and] “It’s very important that action be taken to respond to that.”

Admiral Mullen and other senior U.S. military officials are placing the blame for these attacks squarely on the shoulders of the Pakistani government.

(and rightfully so!)

Of course Pakistani officials rebuffed these assertions. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi claims that,

“We are pursuing a policy of political engagement, but that does not mean that we will capitulate in front of terrorists.” [and that it was an] “exaggeration to just pass the buck to Pakistan.”

Mr. Foreign Minister, a “policy of political engagement” is just another way of saying you’re trying to solve this problem through diplomacy. Considering your efforts have resulted in increasing terrorist activity, the militants aren’t listening. Obviously, the terrorists aren’t concerned about the consequences of continued activity because your words don’t carry any bite. I’m afraid that your “policy of political engagement” has failed and is tantamount to capitulation in front of these terrorists.

(are you listening Obama?)

Yesterday, Barack Obama, lambasted supporters of “English-only” laws. Speaking to supporters in Georgia, Obama said,

“I don’t understand when people are going around worrying about, we need to have English only. They want to pass a law, we just, we want English only,” … “Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English, I agree with this. But understand this, instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English, they’ll learn English, you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.” (emphasis mine)

Okay. Obama is endorsing bilingualism and I agree; it’s important to learn more than one language, especially the language of a neighboring country. Among other things, I believe it improves cultural understanding. My problem is being told I “need” to teach my children another language to communicate within the borders of my own country! When I visit Germany, I don’t expect the locals to speak my language, it’s my responsibility to learn their language! So, in the United States, I shouldn’t have to learn Spanish to order food in a Mexican restaurant!!

If I don’t plan to ever venture outside the United States, there is no reason whatsoever that I learn any language other than English. And don’t presume to tell me what I “need” to teach my children!

BTW: How many languages does Obama speak? (h/t: The American Pundit)

“While the Obama campaign says that Obama speaks a little bit of Indonesian, Obama himself admits that he isn’t bilingual.”

How embarrassing is that?

MORE: Hot Air; Boots & Sabers; Right Wing News; Shooting the Messenger

As Obama spins a new tale of troop support and safe withdrawal (or not) from Iraq, the senator’s own words are coming back to haunt him (h/t: Hot Air)

MORE: Redstate

Iraq’s National Security Advisor, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, says that any security deal with the U.S. must contain a specific timetable for troop withdrawal.

Fine.

I don’t have a problem with leaving Iraq after the job is done. But to post a departure schedule is beyond ridiculous. The Iraqi’s position calls for all U.S. led forces to leave once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility for all 18 of the country’s provinces. So far, Iraq has assumed primary responsibility for security in 9 of the 18 provinces.

So, essentially Iraq is asking us to say,

“Hey, al-Qaida! We’ll be out of Iraq just as soon as we turn over this last province. Just lay low for a while and things will soon be back to normal. In fact, if you’re quiet, we’ll probably finish the job faster!”

You know, Japan has the second largest GDP, China is #4 and South Korea is #12. A large portion of the world’s economic exchange takes place within this relatively small portion of the world. And in the middle of it all is North Korea, a failed economy. North Korea, whose stated objective is the reunification of the Korean peninsula. Imagine what this would do to the region and the world’s economy. What’s preventing North Korea from moving on its southern neighbor? The U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force, who have maintained stability in the region for almost 60 years.

Perhaps that’s just what the Iraqi and other Middle Eastern governments are afraid of.

The latest development in the continually evolving political position of Barack Obama finds our vague, mysterious, untried candidate flip-flopping on troop withdrawals:

“When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I am sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

Interesting words from the person who based his candidacy on the complete removal of troops in sixteen months. Per the Obama campaign website:

“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

Attempting to explain the disparity, Obama said,

“We’re going to try this again. Apparently, I was not clear enough. I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end. I’ve also said I would be deliberate and careful about how we get out.” [Furthermore,] “I want to have conversations with commanders on the ground, Iraqi officials. When I come back that information will obviously shape our plans for moving forward.”

When asked why he’s backing away from a specific timeline for troop withdrawals, Obama said,

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain security. That assessment hasn’t changed.”

So, Senator Obama, if I’m hearing you correctly, your official position on troop withdrawals is:

“I will begin to immediately or in the near or distant future begin to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq. Depending on political expediency, I will remove two or more or no combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within a time-frame dictated by the safety and security of our troops which may be 16 months or more or less or never.”

(feel free to use that for your campaign)

MORE: Hot Air; Wak up America; Red State; Flopping Aces; Power Line

(h/t: Drudge) Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper received an unwanted gift during his “State of the City” address yesterday. This gift came from Mrs. Rene Marie, the performer asked to sing the National Anthem for the event. It seems that Mrs Marie decided to change things up a bit and rather than sing the Star Spangled Banner, as requested, she sang Lift Ev’ry Voice & Sing, instead. Her selection, recorded in the Congressional Record as the official “African American National Hymn,” stirred up quite a bit of controversy. Why? Because she did this on her own initiative and didn’t inform anyone of her intent.

Colorado Governor, Bill Ritter, felt Mrs. Marie acted inappropriately and her actions were both “Wrong” and “out of bounds.” Furthermore, he felt that that her action didn’t qualify as “fair artistic expression” and was “operating as a distraction.” City Councilman, Charlie Brown, was critical as well:

“There is no substitute for the national anthem, period. And that’s what really bothered me. You know when we fly the flag, the American flag, it’s always the highest flag, as it should be. And that didn’t come across today, that didn’t happen today.”

Mayor Hickenlooper said he didn’t think Mrs. Marie was trying to offend anyone or make a political statement.

(Bull!)

So why did she do it? According to Mrs Marie:

“When I decided to sing my version, what was going on in my head was: ‘I want to express how I feel about living in the United States, as a black woman, as a black person.’” (emphasis mine)

“I, I, I, my, my”: it doesn’t get any more self-serving than that! Not only is it self-serving, its divisive! The Mayor’s “State of the City” address wasn’t just for the black residents of Denver, it was for everyone. Just as the Star Spangled Banner represents everyone living in the United States! Mrs. Marie’s deceitful act only served to alienate herself and other black Americans, turning an otherwise patriotic song into one of protest!

Does she care? When asked if given the opportunity to do it over, would she sing the same song? “Yes”. Would she apologize? “No”.

Sounds an awful lot like someone trying to make a political statement, doesn’t it?

MORE: Hot Air

Failed Democratic presidential candidate and retired General Wesley Clark, a former Hillary Clinton and now Barack Obama supporter, chided John McCain on his lack of command experience:

“In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk” … “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions.” … “He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn’t held executive responsibility.” … “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”

So Clark, I suppose Obama possesses the requisite command experience? You’re a fool and I believe it wouldn’t matter who was running on the Republican ticket, you’d hold the same opinion. Your comments on the The Huffington Post give away your left-leaning bias:

“Barack had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, and he is ready to bring our troops home and end the occupation of Iraq in a responsible way. John McCain has said that American troops should be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years.”

This is the same spin thats been circulating for months. Certainly Obama may have opposed the war before it began, but in what capacity did he offer his opposition? He certainly wasn’t a member of the Senate at that time. After all, he wasn’t elected until November 2004, a year after the Iraq war began. It’s easy to say you oppose something, when you’re not held to account for your position. (incidently, Hillary Clinton supported the war in an official capacity and you supported her candidacy before she dropped out, leaving you with Obama. Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?) And sure, McCain said we could be in Iraq for 100 years, in the same context that we’ve peacefully ensured regional stability in countries like Korea and Germany for more than half a decade.

Your comments are half-truths and only serve to mislead. I believe you know this and that gives me significant insight into your character. Sadly, you have no integrity.

The Supreme Court has just shot down Washington DC’s 30-year gun ban! In striking down the DC ban, considered the strictest in the country, the Court (finally) acknowledges that each American citizen has a Constitutional right to gun ownership. According to Justice Antonin Scalia in the 64-page majority ruling:

“There seems to us no doubt on the basis of both text and history that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms [and] This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.”

Furthermore,

“We hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

It doesn’t get any clearer than that! Expect the floodgates to open with legal challenges across the country, as citizens exercise their newly clarified right!

MORE: Complete coverage at Hot Air; American Pundit shows another Obama flip-flop: He was for the ban, before he was against it; Bookworm at Webloggin discusses the Court’s 157 page opinion; Michelle Malkin has commentary and blog highlights, plus an insightful quote from Jim Geraghty at NRO, who says,

“All statements by Barack Obama come with an expiration date.”

Too true!

Speaking at a fundraising rally Friday in Jacksonville, Florida, Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” … “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
(emphasis mine)

Obama has now made race an issue in this election and the insidious way in which he did it is appalling; he accuses Republicans of racism before they have actually done or said anything.

And there you have it. This is the audacity of Barack Obama. Surprised?

It’s no big surprise that Barack Obama has decided to forgo accepting public campaign financing and the monetary restrictions it imposes. After all, Obama’s record fundraising literally puts all the other candidates to shame. Still, he did agree, just last year, in writing, to

“aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

This means that in addition to being a liar, Barack Obama is also a hypocrite. When hearing of the news of the latest Obama flip-flop, John McCain said he would still take public financing and of Obama, he “said he would stick to his word. He didn’t.”

So, why did Obama back out of the deal? The system! BHO said,

It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,” … “But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.”

WOW!

Obama supports the system, but now, all of a sudden, it’s broken. That’s convenient! Then why, wonders Ed Morrissey, hasn’t he “lifted a finger to fix it during his three years in the Senate?” Good question! However, in this flip-flop, Obama is actually backpedalling on his own proposal,

“I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”

And John McCain agreed to this!

Democracy 21, a political watchdog group dedicated to removing the influence of private funding in elections voiced their disappointment at Obama’s decision:

“We had hoped and expected that Senator Obama would stick with the public pledge he made to accept public financing and spending limits for the presidential general election, if he was nominated, and if his Republican opponent also agreed to accept public financing and spending limits for the general election. These conditions have been met.”

MaCain says its a matter of trust and he’s right. Who will you trust to represent the little guy? The candidate who was funded by every American’s tax dollars or the candidate who was financed by private donors? Who will the candidate owe a debt to? For the former, it’s the American taxpayer, but for the latter, look for the highest bidder!

MORE: Webloggin calls out Obama on lies! So does Hot Air! Wake up America does, too! As does the Right Wing Nut House! And The American Pundit!

…that’s because he never knows whats going to come out of her mouth!

Barack Obama says he’s disappointed that John McCain thinks his wife should be accountable for her comments. I suppose this means Michelle Obama is supposed to be exempt from critique and criticism for the things she says while making speeches and actively campaigning for her husband?

Gimmieabreak!

If a farmer wants to keep his animals from escaping, he keeps the barn doors shut. Otherwise, he has to round up the animals and account for them.

(and no, I’m not calling Michelle Obama an animal…it’s a metaphor!)

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court voted to give detainees at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. According to the courts decision, the detainees could not be denied the constitutional right of habeas corpus. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, stating,

“The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody. The detainees in these cases are entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.”

The court’s dissenting opinion was provided by Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote that

“America is at war with radical Islamists” and that “the nation will live to regret what the court has done today”.

Although both John McCain and Barack Obama have vowed to close Gitmo, McCain indicated that he was not happy about the court’s decision. Agreeing with the dissenting judges, McCain considers the detainees to be unlawful combatants and not American citizens.

He’s right.

We’re engaged in a war that is unprecedented in the history of our nation. We’re not fighting a tangible enemy, but rather an idea: terrorism. I wrote about this on the day Saddam Hussein was hanged. This is the result of a prolonged war with limited objectives. Clausewitz said,

“Never engage the same enemy for too long, or he will adapt to your tactics.”

We see that here. We’ve given the enemy the opportunity to use our own legal system against us. They’ve seen that this is one area that we’re vulnerable and are slowly taking the high ground. Soon we will lose this war, unless we can orchestrate a decisive victory. Our problem lies in just exactly what is our definition of “victory”

MORE: Hot Air

Gas has topped $4 per gallon and what is Congress doing about it? They’re shifting the blame from their decades-long ineptness into the lap of “Big Oil.” Sure, everyone is looking for someone to pin high gas prices on, and the oil industry is a convenient target. This feeling is further exacerbated by the record profits oil is generating. But I say, what’s wrong with that? After all, aren’t profits the goal in a market economy? Evidently, our Congressional leaders don’t think so because their solution was to enact a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. Fortunately, it didn’t pass. So, what’s the solution?

It’s simple economics–supply and demand. As supply increases, demand decreases, and vice versa. To reduce gas prices we must either increase supply or reduce demand. I believe we must do both. A short-term solution is to increase the supply by drilling for domestic oil. In the long-term, we need to find an alternate fuel source, such as nuclear power, wind, sun, garbage, or whatever.

Unfortunately, we’re not going to see any relief for a while because our lawmakers refuse to take responsibility for the problem and solve it. They would rather submit to the environmental lobby by killing the Offshore Drilling Bill. Furthermore, Congress has resisted the shift to an alternate fuel source because it wouldn’t produce a benefit for at least seven years. Really? What kind of logic is this? If we had invested in nuclear power seven years ago, we’d be seeing some benefit right now, wouldn’t we?

Truth be told, Congress really isn’t too concerned about gas prices. In fact, some, like Barack Obama would like to see even higher prices at the pump!

Unbelievable!

Following up on a previous post, I have some insight into Secretary Wynne and General Moseley’s resignations. First, here are the press releases from Public Affairs:

PRESS RELEASE — Secretary of the Air Force, Office of Public Affairs

Release No. 010608
June 5,2008

Secretary of the Air Force Resigns

Washington, DC -
Since November 3, 2005, it has been my privilege to serve this country as the 21st Secretary of the Air Force. I have relished the opportunity President Bush gave me to lead the strongest Air Force in the world during a time of war, and I have marveled at the tremendous accomplishments of our Airmen and civilians in their valiant defense of this country and its interests. It has been an honor and pleasure to serve as their Secretary while working side-by-side with General Moseley and the magnificent patriots serving in the Department of Defense and the United States Government to win today’s fight, take care of our people, and prepare for tomorrow’s challenges.

Recent events convince me that it is now time for a new leader to take the stick and for me to move on. Therefore I plan to tender my resignation to Secretary Gates. Even as I do, my heart, my thoughts, and prayers remain with America’s Airmen who will continue to do magnificent things for this great country.

Michael W. Wynne
Secretary of the Air Force

——————————-

PRESS RELEASE — Secretary of the Air Force, Office of Public Affairs

Release No. 020608
June 5,2008

Chief of Staff United States Air Force Resigns

Washington, DC - Recent events have highlighted a loss of focus on certain critical matters within the Air Force. As the Air Force’s senior uniformed leader, I take full responsibility for events which have hurt the Air Force’s reputation or raised a question of every Airman’s commitment to our core values. For the past 36 years I have been privileged to serve my country as an Airman in the United States Air Force in peacetime and combat. I was honored and humbled to be appointed the Air Force’s 18th Chief of Staff and have been proud to serve our Airmen and their families. Upon taking office, I worked hard with Secretary Wynne to ensure the Air Force provided the right forces at the right time to help our Nation and allies win the Global War on Terror.

I think the honorable thing to do is to step aside. After consulting with my family, I intend to submit my request for retirement to Secretary Gates. The Air Force is bigger than one Airman, and I have full confidence that the Air Force will continue working with the Joint team to win today’s fight, take care of its Airmen, and meet tomorrow’s challenges. I love the Air Force and remain proud of America’s Airmen.

T. Michael Moseley
Chief of Staff
United States Air Force

Now, I’ve always believed that a leader will share success and own failure; it appears that Wynne and Moseley are doing just that. What troubles me is the message subordinate Air Force leaders are passing down to the commands. The message (from at least the level of the numbered Air Force) is that Secretary Wynne and General Moseley “took one for the team” and paid the price because a “few Airmen let us down.”

WOW!

I couldn’t believe my ears! The Air Force as an organization failed in one of its primary missions: nuclear surety! One failure resulted in armed nuclear weapons being flown across the United States and no one was the wiser. I’m not sure people really understand the magnitude of this incident. The United States lost positive control of several nuclear weapons for an extended period of time. This incident was termed a “Bent Spear” which is a mechanism used to notify the public of significant nuclear weapons incidents other than nuclear weapons accidents or war risk detonations, actual or possible. This wasn’t the first time, either!

Another incident involved the Air Force inadvertently sending secret ballistic missile components to Taiwan. Instead of sending the batteries for helicopters ordered by the Taiwanese, we sent four fuses designed to trigger the Minuteman III ICBM. Nice!

As if that weren’t enough, the $50 million Thunderbird contract that was awarded to Air Force insiders over other competitive bidders was actually just one of many corrupt contracts awarded. The reason?

“The … violations occurred because contracting officials perceived that senior Air Force military officers and associated contractors had used the powers of their positions to impose their preference on the contracting officers to award the contracts to specific companies”

These issues demonstrate a systemic problem within the Air Force. Perhaps the result of the pace and stresses associated with the Global War on Terror, or perhaps it’s just simple complacency. But the fact remains that these failures aren’t the result of a “few Airmen” letting us down. The indicators were there for the senior leaders to see and piece together, and just as the Secretary of Defense said, these leaders failed to act. This is why Wynne and Moseley were asked for their resignations. It’s called accountability and I’m afraid the Air Force’s subordinate commanders just don’t get it!

Al Gore and other global-warming doomsday fanatics are on a crusade to save the planet by reducing carbon emissions. A great article in Wired warns that the problem is more than just a single-minded focus on CO₂ and requires those who truly wish to save the planet to first change their perspective. This means giving up on same of environmentalism’s sacred cows. One of which is protecting the forests.

It seems that when it comes to fighting climate change, older trees actually contribute to global warming. Certainly, a tree acts as an atmospheric vacuum cleaner by taking in CO₂ and giving off O₂; however, as a tree ages it shifts from a CO₂ absorber to a CO₂ emitter. According to Wired, a tree will absorb about 1,500 pounds of CO₂ during the first 55 years of its life. After that, its growth will slow and the tree will absorb less carbon. If left untouched, the tree will gradually decompose or burn in a forest fire and all the stored CO₂ will be released back into the atmosphere. So, what’s the alternative?

Treat trees as crops! A tree farm would act as atmospheric cleaning factory, taking CO₂ out of the air and replacing it with O₂. As the tress ages and it’s usefulness as an atmospheric filter diminishes, it would be cut-down and used for some other purpose, like making furniture. A continuing cycle of planting seedlings, as the elder tress are recycled would provide an extremely efficient mechanism for atmospheric CO₂ removal.

What are some of the other debunked environmental myths?

1. Urban living beats suburban living
2. Air conditioning is better than heating
3. Traditional agriculture beats organic

…and more