Video: Art Thompson on Dangers of Arming ‘Moderate’ Muslims

(via JBS HQ)

It is official: Chris Christie is a neoconservative

I knew it, when the bridge scandal broke; that something was up with this big ol’ tub of lard —- and now, I now know that is true.

The New American Reports:

Speaking to a crowd of 700 at the Champions of Jewish Values International Awards Gala in New York on May 18, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (shown) called for a more aggressive, interventionist U.S. foreign policy.

Criticizing the Obama administration’s foreign policy, which he views as too weak, Christie charged: “America is no longer sending clear signals to the world. Consistent signals.” He continued: “Signals like the ones Ronald Reagan sent when he was president as to who our friends are, and we will stand with them without a doubt, and who are enemies are, who we will oppose regardless of the cost.”

Obviously believing that the United States has not acted aggressively enough through Obama’s foreign policy, Christie said: “The rest of the world watches in desperation and hope that America will realize and act upon once again its indispensable place in the world.”

Christie insisted that America’s leaders must send “clear and consistent signals” to those nations it supports and those it doesn’t while promoting America’s values.

Given the venue, observers interpreted “those nations it supports” to include Israel, but he did not mention the Jewish state by name.

“We need to stand once again loudly for these values,” Christie said. “And sometimes that’s going to mean standing in some very messy, difficult places. Standing long and hard for those things that we believe in.”

Christie was particularly critical of what he considers the Obama administration’s lack of sufficient response to Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

He expressed dismay that “even the thought” exists of Iran building a nuclear weapon. He also criticized Obama for saying he’d draw a “red line” warning Assad not to use chemical weapons, but not intervening when alleged evidence of such attacks was presented.

“Once you draw that red line you enforce it, because if you don’t, America’s credibility will be at stake,” Christie asserted.

Needless to say; I will be removing the blog posting about Chris Christie that I wrote a while back. :mad: What an idiot, pander to the Wilsonians, so he can get elected. He won’t be getting my vote, that is for sure.

 

Patrick J. Buchanan writes the real reason why the GOP is failing

Quote of the week:

To understand why and how the Republican Party lost Middle America, and faces demographic death, we need to go back to Bush I.

At the Cold War’s end, the GOP reached a fork in the road. The determination of Middle Americans to preserve the country they grew up in, suddenly collided with the profit motive of Corporate America.

The Fortune 500 wanted to close factories in the USA and ship production abroad — where unions did not exist, regulations were light, taxes were low, and wages were a fraction of what they were here in America.

Corporate America was going global and wanted to be rid of its American work force, the best paid on earth, and replace it with cheap foreign labor.

While manufacturing sought to move production abroad, hotels, motels, bars, restaurants, farms and construction companies that could not move abroad also wanted to replace their expensive American workers.

Thanks to the Republican Party, Corporate America got it all.

Head on over to Pat’s site and read why “The GOP lost middle America.” It is sad, but true, account about what really happened to that Grand Old Party.

 

 

John Podhoretz gets exposed for the intolerant Trotskyite that he truly is

This is great;  a Trotskyite Zionist goes for a debate; and the minute he sees that he is losing the debate — he storms off the stage, takes his marbles and goes home.

I am referring to the greatest Trotskyite, Zionist, Neoconservative of them all — John Podhoretz.

See here, here, here and here.

Money quote:

Bottom line: I’d had a long day and I didn’t see the point in spending more of it getting booed and shushed. So I left. So sue me.

If only we could sue you and your family for all the trillions of dollars — and the 4000+ lives that were  wasted in the Iraq War —- which you and your satanic Father were cheerleaders for, after 9/11. Actually, I would very much like to see criminal charges filed against you and few of your Trotskyite friends as well. However, as we realists know; that will never happened to a protected class as yourself.

You want to know what got wrong with Conservatism? You want to know why the GOP is in the shape that it is in? Look no further than this man here and his idiotic Trotskyite magazine that he runs. They are the true enemies of America; they are the ones who put us in the war that almost broke this Nation and ruined its standing in the world.

It is a pity that there is not true justice in this Nation of ours; otherwise, this man and his friends would be sitting in jail cells.

 

Obama’s dirty little secret about Syria?

This does make sense:

The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obama’s much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that it’s not about Syria at all. It’s about Iran—and Israel. And it has been from the start.

By “the start,” I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Iran’s. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obama’s Syria policy.

Not coincidentally, the White House plans to scare members of Congress into supporting the ill-conceived war plan by waving the Iranian flag in their faces. Even liberal Democrats, some of whom are opposing or questioning war with Syria, blanch at the prospect of opposing Obama and the Israel lobby over Iran.

via Obama’s Syria War Is Really About Iran and Israel | The Nation.

It should not surprise anyone that the Neoconservatives, lead by AIPAC have supported and advocating for this sort of a conflict. Which will cause another war in the region. Hopefully, the GOP and the Democrats will have the sense to tell AIPAC to please piss off and find someone else to fight their wars for them.

What gets me is that the establishment left is against this whole thing and yet, Obama is dead set on doing this; what an idiot! I mean, Obama must be bound and determined to ruin his party’s chances of being reelected in 2014 and 2016.

Bombing victim speaks out about Muslims and Terrorism

Glad to see this. :)

The Video is here. I was going to post it here, but it is an auto start embed and those drive people crazy! So, go to the link to view it!

The Story:

A Boston Marathon bombing victim hospitalized for weeks after the blasts lashed out at the mother of the accused bombers, calling Zubeidat Tsarnaeva “vile” for her jihad-laced rants and denials.

Michelle L’Heureux, a 38-year-old John Hancock consultant, told the Herald yesterday it’s time to stop being “politically correct” and speak out — making her one of the first victims to stand up to the terror-talking Chechen family.

“I feel a little bit of hatred towards her. I think she is a vile person,” L’Heureux said of the mom. “If you don’t like our country, get out. It’s as simple as that.”

L’Heureux lost most of her left knee in the blasts, and 30 percent of her hearing in her left ear. Her left arm is riddled with shrapnel scars, and there’s a piece of metal still inside her leg. She was 8 feet away from the first blast on Boylston Street. She came to the city to see her boyfriend cross the finish lin

via Bombing victim calls suspects’ mom ‘vile’ | Boston Herald.

If only more liberal Democrats felt this way, maybe we would have actually won the war on terror. Instead, because of the Democrat’s almost allergic reaction to war and because of the bungled methods of the Bush Administration — we lost it and badly. Oh, and BTW, I have seen where people have blamed this guy here for the loss of the Afghan war.  Sorry, but that is bunch of flipping malarkey and I think the person that wrote that knows it; he is just looking to deflect the fact that Bush’s mishandling of the war in Afghanistan and the overselling of the war in Iraq.

Plus too, I believe we pulled out too early of Iraq and Afghanistan; we could have done it better, but we needed more time. But, when you have a war weary nation, what can you do?

Others: Weekly StandardThe Jawa Report and Instapundit

No, Sorry, Dick (head) Cheney, I do NOT trust you or your idiotic successor in the White House!

Ol’ Dick (head) Cheney says that we ought to just trust the Government.

The Video: (Via Think Progress)

Okay here is the little small problem with trusting Dick Cheney and his boss George W. Bush, they lied, as in like 935 times in a row, during their Presidency and Vice Presidency.

Prove it, you say? Sure.

Via The Center for Public Integrity, which is as follows:

The Center for Public Integrity was founded in 1989 by Charles Lewis. We are one of the country’s oldest and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations. Our mission: To enhance democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism.

Anyhow, here is why I don’t trust Neocons, nor do I trust Democratic Party liberals or Neo-leftists:

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

  • On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?’ “
  • In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn’t been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn’t requested it.
  • In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: “Sure.” In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.” What’s more, an earlier DIA assessment said that “the nature of the regime’s relationship with  Al Qaeda is unclear.”
  • On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team’s final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
  • On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”
  • On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: “What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.” As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named “Curveball,” whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had “decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government].”

The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation. 

In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, “independent” validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.

The “ground truth” of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: “It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual “ground truth” regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who’s Who of domestic agencies.

On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation’s allies on their way to war.

Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government’s pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.

Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

A video:

The real sick and sad part is this; the same people that are having a hissy fit on the right about this program existing under Obama, are the same ones who were perfectly fine with it existing under Bush. In other words, they trusted the program under Bush. like idiots. My question to that crowd is this; why do  you not trust Obama? Because he is black or because he is a Democratic Party liberal?

Anyone and I mean anyone, who puts their trust in this Government of ours, based upon partisanship is nothing more than a darned fool in my opinion. Both of these political parties are two sides of the same coin and that is corruption and big Government socialism. Both parties promote it, both parties contribute to it. Government hand outs are Government hand outs; whether it be in the forum of welfare or Government subsidies. It is big Government statist and it flies in the face of our Constitution and in the face of what this great Nation was founded upon.

Others: Prairie Weather

UPDATED – It’s official: The Obama Administration is in deep trouble and I am done defending them

My friends, I was very, very wrong and for that, I am terribly sorry. :(

I said that I believed that the entire Benghazi, Libya debacle was over-hyped by the Republicans; and I still believe that, to a point.

However, there are many things that have come up since then, which I simply cannot defend.

They are:

  1. The IRS targeting Jewish groups.  – I mean, honestly, what the hell were the IRS and Obama’s people thinking when they let this one happen?
  2. IRS targeting Conservative groups in Washington and Elsewhere. — Did they not know that this would be exposed?
  3. DOJ going after the AP – This is borderline Watergate, so says a watergate player. — Again, what the hell were these people thinking?

My friends, the “Giving the benefit of the doubt” of the President and his Administration by this writer and blogger are over. There is no doubt in my mind that the Obama administration; much like the Administration of George W. Bush, became consumed with a lust for power and abused and exploited the office of President of the United States and the instruments of Governmental office for political purposes.

I leave you with two videos:

Update: Better clip via The American Spectator:

The Democrats have screwed themselves out of ever winning an election; for like oh, maybe the next 2 major election cycles. This is the sad part, Obama and his Administration promised Americans that he would be a clean break from the policies and practices of President George W. Bush and his Administration and sadly, it turns out that Obama and his Administration are just as bad; if not even worse.   As I wrote before, it is sad ending to a Presidency that offered so much to give; but ended up delivering little or nothing at all, in the realm of change.

It is going to be a long, hot, nasty, political summer for America, Americans, Black Liberal Americans and for Washington D.C.. I just hope that cool heads prevail. But, I really do fear the worst in yet to come.

Blogger Round Up #1: (viaYahoo! NewsJustOneMinuteMichelle MalkinNew York TimesSunlight Foundation BlogBBCWall Street JournalRight Turnwaysandmeans.house.govHot AirThe WeekThe Daily CallerThe HillDaily KosFirst ReadThe Maddow BlogPostPartisanThe FixWhite House DossierThe Other McCainBetsy’s PageDa Tech Guy On DaRadio BlogScared Monkeys,msnbc.comObsidian WingsWeasel ZippersJammie Wearing FoolsTwitchyNational Review,The Lonely ConservativePower LineConservatives4Palin and CBS DC

Blogger Round Up #2: (viaYahoo! NewsWashington MonthlyBuzzFeedThe WeekAssociated PressHit & Run,News DeskFox NewsOpen Channelmsnbc.comemptywheelGuardianWorldViewsPatterico’s PontificationsThe Huffington PostNo More Mister Nice BlogUSA TodayThe HillWeekly StandardPoynterThe Daily CallerThe Volokh ConspiracyErik WempleThinkProgressRight Wing NewsTaylor MarshScared MonkeysAddicting Infoamericanthinker.comCNN,CANNONFIREThe BLTPJ MediaNO QUARTER USA NETThe Moderate VoiceThe Hinterland GazetteNationalJournal.comHot AirWashington Free BeaconWashington ExaminerWired,PoliticoWeasel ZippersGawkerTHE DEFINITIVE SOURCEHullabalooEd DriscollThe Verge,The Gateway PunditSPJ NewsThe PJ TatlerNational ReviewNational Republican …Philly.com,Mother JonesLe·gal In·sur·rec· tionSister ToldjahOutside the BeltwayWonketteTalkLeft andLawfaremore at Mediagazer »

Update #1: Franklin Graham says they were targeted. Those rat bastards have no shame at all. :mad:

 Update #2:  Obama Admin’s IRS targeted reporter who gave hard interview.

Update #3: I am just going to say this and get it off my chest:

IMPEACH THE FUCKER AND GET IT OVER WITH!

Roundup #3: The Gateway PunditSister ToldjahWeasel ZippersWashington Free BeaconRule of LawBuzzFeedViralReadJammie Wearing Fools,The PJ TatlerVodkaPundit and Hot Air

Senator Claire McCaskill said What?!?!?

This also comes via HotAir.com and yes, via Ed Morrissey: (I only link to this one, because like Ed, My jaw went “CLANK!” when I saw this…)

Transcript:

BOB SCHIEFFER, “FACE THE NATION”: Do either of you at this point think there’s a chance that we would have to put U.S. troops in there or that we would want to?

SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D-MISSOURI): I don’t think you want to ever rule it out because I think this is, kind of, as — as Saxby said, this thing has really deteriorated, and it’s not really at a tipping point. So I don’t think you ever want to say absolutely not. Obviously, we don’t want to do that unless it’s absolutely necessary.

Do either of these two ding-a-lings have any idea what kind of troop commitment that would take? I mean, Syria is a huge Country and we would be fighting all sorts of people. (You know, kind of like….um, Iraq?)

Ed Morrissey sums it up:

We might be able to prevent that with a large-scale invasion and an equally large-scale occupation that lasts a decade or more, if we can get enough NATO members to come along with us and sell it to a Congress that has been acting as though Iraq was a huge mistake. That would include having to quell any insurgencies from Jabhat al-Nusra or related groups, along with fighting Hezbollah again. Anyone up for that kind of commitment? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Funny how the same Democrats who were all like, “The War lost and we need to come home!” during Presidency of George W. Bush are the same ones who are now all, “A yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!” when it comes to Syria and Obama.  I think that some voices of sanity on the left really need to speak up right about now and tell these people, “Um, Folks? We tried that in Iraq and our butts are still sore and we lost like a bunch of people. Lets not do that, okay?

This also proves a few things that I always did suspect; that the Anti-War movement, among the beltway Democrats; unlike the real grassroots Progressive anti-war movement —- was nothing more than an Anti-Bush partisan pet cause. Which quickly dried up once Obama was in office.  I am thinking that Bush knew this and this is why he would not cave to their demands, despite the fact that there was no WMD’s.

To be fair, I have always suspected that Libya was a partisan pet cause among the Republicans; which explains why it never gained in traction in Congress at all.  I mean, there were obviously some mistakes made; but the way the Republicans have drummed that story up, and yes, I do mean via Fox News —- makes me think it falls among partisan lines.  True, many Military people and grassroots Conservatives are concerned about it and rightly so. The Republicans simply made it their pet cause and will in 2014 and 2016; you watch. This is until it starts to generate backlash and they quickly drop it; like when they are elected. Again, watch what happens. I know the game, I have been around it long enough.

 

Noted cowardly anonymous blogger slams Detroit

hotair

All Racism, All the time?

It’s a pretty provocative headline. But, it’s sorta true and sorta not.

I have written before about Detroit’s problems, so, I know full well of what goes on around here. I also happen to know that Detroit’s Auto companies sales are up too.

Anyhow, I guess Governor Snyder, in between supposedly bringing in jobs for this state, is appointing an emergency manager in for the City of Detroit. Quoting the Detroit News, a right-leaning newspaper, by the way:

Snyder said the city has not been able to solve its financial crisis and that outside help is needed. Today “is a day to call all hands on deck… to say there’s been too much fighting, too much blame, not enough resources, not enough people working together. The key answer I believe all of us want to get to is growing the city of Detroit.”…

The review team found Detroit’s cash-flow deficit is nearly $100 million. That’s on top of an accumulated deficit of $327 million. The city also has $14.9 billion worth of unfunded pension and employment retirement liabilities, according to the review team report. In five years, it needs $1.9 billion to begin making payments on the debt…

Greg Bowens, a political expert and former press secretary for former mayor Dennis Archer, said an emergency manager would be a devastating blow for the morale for the people of Detroit.

“In the end, it means the governor does not have the faith in the people of Detroit to govern themselves in a responsible manner,” Bowens said.

So, yes, Detroit has a cash flow problem and now the Republican statist is now going to try to solve those problems. Ah yes, fake conservatism at it’s finest.

That’s not what’s half bad about it; you have this anonymous coward blogger, from the state who’s mayor wants to ban everything that is good and enjoyable by its people. Said coward writes:

Why … yes, that’s what it means. I can’t believe there’s any serious constituency outside Detroit that would disagree, and Detroiters themselves would disagree only out of pure pride. The city’s a byword for terminal liberal sclerosis. How can this be a blow to their morale when their morale’s already reached this point? Look no further than their statuary to see that they’re desperate for a savior to ride in and impose order on a dystopian nightmare.

Yeah, and I suppose your little city up there is a capitalist utopia too right, Jeremy? Please. :roll:  The only reason why the Communist Party of America is not running New York City is because the citizens of the suburbs would not allow it and the Republican Party of New York State would stage a massive revolt. I suppose the only thing the City of Detroit’s people should do is just hang their hands and allow an outsider come and run roughshod over the City and impose his Faux-Republican style of Nanny-State Government. What a moron! :roll:

What’s more: Check out some of the racist comments over on HotAir, now:

Continue reading

The Further Consequences of Wilsonian Foreign Policy in Iraq

This is what happens when you invade sovereign nations based upon bad intelligence  and do not bother to verify said intelligence.

BAGHDAD –  Car bombs struck two outdoor markets and a group of taxi vans in Shiite areas across Iraq on Friday, killing at least 36 people and wounding nearly 100 in the bloodiest day in more than two months, as minority Sunnis staged large anti-government protests.

Sunni protesters have rejected calls to violence by an Al Qaeda-linked group, but there is concern that Sunni insurgents could step up attacks ahead of the April 20 provincial elections — the first country-wide vote since the U.S. troop withdrawal more than a year ago.

via 4 car bombs at outdoor markets in Iraq kill at least 36, wound 100 | Fox News.

Now I am not going to sit here and write a posting blaming Bush for all the above. Yes, Bush was wrong about Iraq; but Bush has not been President since 2009, when he left office. Obama took the reigns of the Country and he now is the President, so, basically, Iraq was Obama’s baby when he took office. There are some who believe that Obama removed our troops too early; to be quite honest with you, I really do not agree with that at all. Because to be honest with you, our presence there was causing a good deal of friction in that Country, or at the very least, adding to the friction that was already there. Now the total anti-war people say that, if we would have never invaded Iraq, this above would not be happening; because Saddam would not tolerate it. This is true, but Saddam also was a brutal dictator, who did horrible things to his people as well. So, while it is not a good thing that we invaded that country, we did get rid of someone who was a horrible tyrant. This is why I never took, and still do not take a hard stance on the Iraq War and the middle east; because it is such a complex subject, and seems to get more complex by the minute. This is why I never really bought into the, “blood for oil” meme by the Democrats and the anti-war crowd. I did feel however, that once we got Saddam, we should have started making the moves to leave the Country.

However, I will say this; this Wilsonian bungle that did happen in Iraq, will be a black mark on America for a very long time to come. The Wilsonian foreign policy crowds biggest flaw, is that they cannot see past the end of their noses. They never look past the “here and now.” They always live in the moment. They do not stop to think about what might happen down the road; they never do. All they care about is defending Israel, no matter the cost of life or money. This is their fatal flaw and they have ruined America’s credibility around the World. What gets me is, how the Republicans like to blame Obama for ruining America’s standing in the World. The problem is, Obama is a very little part of that; the Neoconservatives, with their Wilsonian foreign policy ruined America’ reputation in just eight years time. True the Democrats did destroy the housing market and the economy. But, our standing in the World was done by Bush and the Neocons.

Anyone that tells you anything different than that, is either lying or a partisan. But, then again, I repeat myself.

Taking Religion out of the Military?

I have mixed feelings about this one:

“Soldiers with minority religious beliefs and atheists often feel like second-class citizens when Christianity is seemingly officially endorsed by their own base,” American Atheists president David Silverman told Fox News. “We are very happy the Pentagon and the Army decided to do the right thing.” A military spokesman told Fox News the cross was literally dismantled and will be removed from the base to be in “compliance with Army regulations and to avoid any misconception of religious favoritism or disrespect.” “After a Christian prayer, the cross was removed from the roof of the chapel,” the spokesman said. “During the removal, the cross was dismantled; however the cross was reassembled and currently awaits transportation to a larger operational base.” The military told Fox News the cross will only be brought out during Christian services and will be designated as a “non-permanent religious symbol.” Silverman said a Christian chapel on an Army base in Afghanistan could have put American troops in danger. “It inflames this Muslim versus Christian mentality,” he said. “This is not a Muslim versus Christian war — but if the Army base has a large chapel on it that has been converted to Christian-only, it sends a message that could be interpreted as hostile to Islam.” An Army spokesman said all chapels must be religiously neutral. “The primary purpose of making a chapel a neutral, multi-use facility is to accommodate the free exercise of religion for all faith groups using it,” he said. “We take the spiritual fitness of our Soldiers seriously and encourage them to practice their faith and exercise their beliefs however they choose.” Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, of the Family Research Council, told Fox News a Christian cleansing of the military is under way. “I don’t think you can categorize it any other way,” he said. “There is a strong effort, led partially by the Administration as well as by atheist groups to destroy the identity of who we are as a nation and that means robbing us of our history.” —- Military: Crosses Removed ‘Out of Respect for Other Faiths’ | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

On one hand, I would hate to think that having Christian symbols on a battle front could be putting our Military at risk. On the other hand, I would hate to see Christianity being removed from the Military entirely. However, we are in a Muslim Nation is Afghan region; one would think that the Military would want to be respectful of those people and their culture.

It is a mixed bag, and all the more reason why we really need to get out of that Country. Our mission is done there; we killed Osama and we need to leave. We do not want to make the same mistake the Russians made there. Besides all that, Al-Qaeda has moved into other regions and is much more a threat to other interests in other parts for the world now.

So, to this Independent, the quicker we leave, the better.