It seems that someone has finally talked some sense into Obama’s dimwitted brain.  Obama is now refusing to release photographs of detainee “abuse” because military commanders say that doing so could whip up anti-American sentiment, create a deadly backlash against American soldiers, and inflame radicals into committing more acts of terrorism.

Really?  Why didn’t someone tell Obama this before he released memos detailing “harsh” interrogation techniques used against terrorism suspects?  What purpose did that serve other than to appease his anti-American liberal base and tip-off terrorists as to what to expect should they be captured?

Is this another example of Obama’s hypocrisy?  Is this an example of him playing politics with human lives?  Or is this an example of an unqualified, incompetent President flip-flopping because he realizes that pandering to his liberal base is dangerous to America and the world?

NY Times Article

How could anyone not know this type of thing would happen with Obama as President?

Meanwhile, all the gains we have made in Iraq are eroding under Obama’s leadership.  Afghanistan is turning into a hellhole.  And Pakistan is on the verge of being taken over by radical jihadists.

Nice work, Mr. President.

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama promised to withdraw all troops from Iraq as soon as he was elected.  Actually, he flip-flopped all over on the issue, in typical Democrat fashion.  Today, he gave a speech outlining his plans for withdrawing troops–but not anywhere near all of them.

CNN Article

Obama’s current plan is to withdraw 92,000  of the current total of 142,000 troops in Iraq, leaving up to 50,000 behind until the mandated exit date at the end of 2011.

Does that sound like withdrawal to you?  It’s a draw-down, but not a withdrawal.  Obama was quoted as saying:

Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

Actually, the combat mission has mostly ended now, and has been over for quite some time.  Obama plans to keep troops in Iraq to do pretty much what they are already doing:  training Iraqis, providing security, counter-terrorism operations, and supporting Iraqi troops.  From the CNN article:

Administration officials, who briefed reporters on the plan, said the remaining troops would take on advisory roles in training and equipping Iraqi forces, supporting civilian operations in Iraq and conducting targeted counterterrorism missions, which would include some combat.

So, what is the difference between Obama’s grand plan for Iraq and what they are currently doing?  Not much.  The only difference is that there will be less troops doing it than before.  But there will still be plenty of Americans over there, despite Obama’s prior promises.

Let us take a look at what a dirty fraud and liar President Barack Hussein Obama is.  Not surprisingly, he is just as big of a fraud and liar as any other Democrat.

In September, 2007, Obama said:

Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was.

The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now.

If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.

There is no ambiguity regarding Obama’s original position on American soldiers in Iraq.  Immediate withdrawal was what he pretended to support back then.

But now that Obama is President, he is no longer supportive of the immediate withdrawal that energized his mindless liberal base and caused millions of dollars in donations to flood in.  Too bad liberals aren’t smart enough to see Obama for what he truly is.  Anyone could have predicted this.  Rush Limbaugh did.

For more on Obama’s Iraq flip-flips, please see:

Barack Obama Sounds Like President Bush On Iraq

Do you remember how liberals would say things like, “Do you want endless wars?”, during the Presidential campaign to justify their support for Obama over John McCain?  As if anybody would support an endless war.  But how has Obama done on that?

Well, Obama not only isn’t ending the Iraq War, as he promised, but he is deepening American involvement in the Afghanistan War.

Obama Sends More American Soldiers To Be Slaughtered

Obama is sending an additional 17,000 American troops to Iraq.  Does that sound like he’s against “endless wars” to you?

Violence in Iraq is down substantially.  Despite the success in Iraq, Barack Obama still opposes the surge.

Doesn’t Obama realize that the accomplishments against terrorists in Iraq would not have been possible without the surge?

Fox News Article

Barack Obama is on the wrong side of every issue, even after the fact.  How can you possibly be opposed to something successful?  It’s mind-boggling idiocy.

Is anyone surprised that Barack Obama would change his position on withdrawing American troops from Iraq?

Obama rallied liberals by demanding that troops be pulled out.  When?  As soon as possible–immediately, in fact.  But here is what Obama said last week in an interview with Military Times:

Look, I’ve said this repeatedly from the start, and so I welcome the opportunity to correct the record. This whole notion that I would initiate a precipitous withdrawal just isn’t borne out by anything that I’ve said.  (See Obama’s quote from Sept. 2007 below.) What I have repeatedly said from the start, when I introduced my first piece of legislation on this issue in January of 2007 is that we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. That we should send a clear message to Iraqi leadership that we are not going to engage in a permanent occupation in Iraq and that we are not going to have permanent bases there. That we want to bring a gradual withdrawal of our combat forces, that we would maintain a counterterrorism force in the region that could continue to keep al-Qaida on the run. That we would continue to have a protective force for our embassy, our civilian and humanitarian forces and that we would continue to train Iraqis both army and police, so long as those who are being trained were not falling back into sectarian patterns. And I have always said that as commander in chief I will absolutely seek the advice and counsel of our generals and our commanders on the field, not just our generals, but our mid-level officers and those who are on the ground doing the fighting.

So if current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and stabilization and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground.

How is that any different that what President Bush is doing right now?  It is no different.  What Obama basically said is that conditions on the ground will dictate when troops leave and any decision to withdraw troops will be made in consultation with Iraqi leaders.  Not only that, but Obama also plans to leave thousands of US troops in Iraq for years to come.

This is what President Bush said in November, 2006:

I believe it is very important, though, for people making suggestions to recognize that the best military options depend upon the conditions on the ground.

And this is what President Bush said in November, 2005:

As Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop level in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists.

These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.

As the Iraqi forces grow more capable, they are increasingly taking the lead in the fight against the terrorists. Our goal is to train enough Iraqi forces so they can carry the fight against the terrorists.

Democrats are toning down their surrender rhetoric now that we have actually turned the corner in Iraq.  Why?  Maybe because they realize how wrong they were?  Afterall, it was the Democrats who said that the surge would never work.  Not only has it worked, but it has worked very well.

Barack Obama previously demanded immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.  This is what Obama said in September, 2007, just ten months ago:

Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was.

The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now.

If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.

Too bad Obama doesn’t realize that almost everything he has said is archived for our effortless retrieval.  Remember this Obama quote from above:

This whole notion that I would initiate a precipitous withdrawal just isn’t borne out by anything that I’ve said.

Bullshit!  Obama himself demanded immediate withdrawal, and now he claims he never said it!

Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?  The man is an absolute fraud.  Liberals are dumb enough to believe what he says, no matter what he says, just because he says it.

Looks like Obama has been caught in another lie, doesn’t it?  That’s not just another flip-flop, though Obama is a huge flip-flopper, that is an outright lie.

That’s why we call Democrats “dirty frauds and liars”.

At a time when the United States–and all of the free world–is at war with radical Islamists, Democrat voters have decided to elect another Muslim to Congress.

Andre Carson was elected to the US House Of Representatives from his district covering the Indianapolis, Indiana, area. He’s the grandson of the late DFL Representative Julia Carson, who died in December of 2007 and whose seat he is filling.

Andre Carson converted to Islam a decade ago. As you can imagine, he is eager to pull troops out of Iraq, surrendering it to radical Islamists. Who would have ever guessed that a Muslim would want to surrender to Muslims?

No matter what the situation is, you can always count on Democrat voters to act in a self-destructive manner. Democrat allies such as union members destroy the free market and push jobs overseas with ridiculous wage and benefit demands. Unionized teachers destroy the education system and hold it hostage as a bargaining chip. Then you’ve got generation after generation of Democrat-voting welfare parasites destroying communities with crime and violence.

Now they are electing Muslims to positions of power when we are at war with radical Islamists. Pure Democrat brilliance…

Article

Have you ever noticed that wherever you find liberals, you find low class, trashy behavior?

Around 200 liberals were arrested in Washington D.C. at an anti-war march Saturday. It’s bad enough that these illogical liberal fools want us to surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda, but they can’t even act like civilized human beings in the process.

In 4-1/2 years of the Iraq War roughly 3,700 American soldiers have died. In that same period of time, about 56,000 people have been murdered in America—the majority of those people murdered in Democrat-voting strongholds by members of the Democratic Party’s most loyal voting base.

Why don’t Democrats protest the war zone in New Orleans? Or Philadelphia? Detroit? Baltimore? The list of Democrat-created hellholes of crime and violence goes on and on. Yet, not a peep from the left… They also don’t utter a peep about the Democrats who laid the groundwork for the Iraq War back in the 1990s. Why is that?

The Pentagon has harshly criticized Hillary Clinton for helping the terrorists with her “abandon Iraq” public statements. From the MSNBC article:

Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia…

Well, that’s a no-brainer. Unless you are a liberal, in which case you don’t have much of a brain in the first place.

Also on the same page is a link to MSNBC video where Hillary Clinton demonstrates what a fraud she is with respect to her position on the Iraq War. In March, Hillary said she would pull troops out of Iraq. Then this month she said she would leave American troops behind in Iraq to train Iraqi security forces and help keep the peace.

Uh, which is it, Ms. Clinton? You can’t have it both ways! Democrats, being pathological frauds and liars, always play both sides of an issue. They need to appeal to their delusional and highly vocal liberal base while at the same time keeping one foot rooted in reality to avoid scaring off the portion of the Democratic base that has a modicum of common sense.

Hillary must have been taking lessons from her husband Bill Clinton on how to be two-faced. Perhaps Hillary should take some lessons from Monica Lewinsky. Maybe then Bill Clinton will actually stop by to see her for more than a photo opportunity.

If you support Hillary Clinton, you are an idiot.

Fact: The Democratic Party undermines the United States and the American way of life every chance it gets.

Whether it is destroying the American economy and jobs with high taxation, giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants and millions more of their family members, or making life easier for terrorists, you can count on the Democratic Party to do the exact opposite of what is best for America.

Just a few months ago, Democrats failed in their pathetic attempt to force a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The DFL didn’t even have enough votes from fellow Democrats without tacking on billions in pork-barrel spending to gain votes. (Democrats are whores waiting to be bought with the frivolous spending of taxpayer dollars.)

Yet despite their recent failings, Democrats are back in full force with their “Sabotage The Iraq War” campaign. The DFL’s latest proposal is to withdraw most troops from Iraq by April of 2008, leaving a small number behind to conduct training and engage in anti-terrorism operations. (Article)

But isn’t the Democrat’s latest proposal contrary to the wishes of their vocal, anti-war base? I thought the anti-war liberals wanted all troops out of Iraq immediately.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), is planning a rare all-night session–a theatrical gesture designed to appease the Democrats’ liberal base. A quote by Reid from the article:

We have to force the president to change this; otherwise we’re going to have American soldiers killed for the next 18 months unnecessarily.

Interesting… What makes anti-war liberals think that American soldiers subscribe to their views on anything? During the 2004 presidential election, military personnel supported George Bush over born-again, anti-war zealot John Kerry by a four-to-one margin.

Still, the Democrats are not talking about what will happen to Iraq if we leave. Democrats don’t like to look at issues logically, partly because they lack the logical reasoning ability and partly because if they did, they would realize that their policies make no sense at all.

Sure, it’s sad that American troops are being killed. There are many children who will grow up without a father. But, Democrats are not concerned about the loss of human life. They are concerned about pandering to their vocal anti-war base.

How can we tell? Easily: Since the start of the Iraq war, approximately 3,600 soldiers have been killed fighting terrorists. During that same period of time, approximately 52,000 people have been murdered in America—the majority of them murdered in Democrat-controlled inner cities by the Democrats’ most loyal voting bloc.

If Democrats cared about human life, they would look in their own backyards and do something about the senseless murders in their own communities. They would do something about the high rates of rape, robbery, and violent crime in Democrat-voting strongholds. But they don’t. And they won’t.

The DFL is using the Iraq War exclusively for political purposes because of its high visibility. Don’t expect Democrats to talk about the 16,500 people murdered each year. Those victims are nameless, faceless, and they won’t be the lead story on the national nightly newscasts. Thus, there is no political benefit for the Democrats.

Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (D-VA), announced that the Senate will face more votes about Iraq in the coming weeks.

Didn’t the Democrats fail at this a few weeks ago? Yes they did.

Here’s an interesting passage from the ABC News website:

While the measures are unlikely to pass, the announcement comes as party leaders are under fire by many liberal supporters for passing legislation that funds the war through September.

There you go: Democrats are pandering to liberal whiners and complainers, as they always do.

What happens if we pull out of Iraq as liberal anti-war nuts and many Democrats say they want to do? Peace? The end of terrorism against the Iraqi citizenry? Not likely.

If we leave Iraq, the overwhelming odds are that the entire nation will descend into chaos. Terrorism and bloodshed will reign against the populace. Terrorists will be emboldened by their “victory” against the United States, using Iraq as a platform for further conquests. Civilians will be conscripted into the terrorist’s army meaning that instead of fighting several thousand terrorists, we will have to contend with millions of soldiers.

What Al Qaeda wants is control–and the Democrats are more than willing to give it to them. Or are they?

You see, there is no telling what the Democrats really want. Do they want us to pull out of Iraq? Or are they posturing in order to pander to their vocal liberal base because they know nothing will result?

If there is no chance of getting anything passed, then the Democrats can be as outlandish as they want to be without regard to reality. Their liberal base, as gullible and stupid as they are, will be satisfied with the DFL’s hollow symbolism. Perhaps not completely satisfied, but satisfied enough continue showering the Democrats with votes.

Thus the Democrats maintain the liberal support they so desperately need by engaging in symbolic gestures that they know are futile. They sound like frauds to me.

Congressional Democrats have abandoned their goal of tying an Iraq troop withdrawal deadline to a critical war spending bill–just like everyone knew they would.

The DFL has failed again! So predictable, yet so funny!

The Democrats were doomed to fail. The fact that they had to load up the first war spending bill they sent to the President with billions in pork-barrel spending to gain support from fellow Democrats was evidence enough. But the reality is that the Democrats are spineless and have no real principles other than the desire to pander to any group that makes enough noise. In this case, it was the rabid anti-war crowd.

Nobody likes war. In a perfect world there would be no war. In a perfect world, Democrat-voting strongholds wouldn’t be shooting galleries and cesspools of crime and violence. But we are not living in a perfect world.

Even if we ignore for the moment the fact that most Democrats believed that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that many prominent Democrats supported the Iraq invasion, the reality is that we are there. And if we leave Iraq because of some silly, arbitrary deadline that the Democrats insist on to appease a vocal, yet irrational base, all hell will break loose.

What do the Democrats think will happen if we pullout at a specified date? Do they think peace will break out? Do they think that Al Qaeda will stop murdering innocent civilians? Do the Democrats believe that the radical Islamists will abandon their goal of enslaving the Iraqi people in a repressive Islamic state?

It is quite possible that Democrats and, in particular, their liberal base believe such nonsense. Liberals may believe that because deep down in their hearts they believe that America is responsible for all that is bad in the world.

Liberalism is not rooted in logic. If liberals were a logical group, they would realize that what is happening in Iraq is symptomatic of what is happening all over the globe. Radical Islam is on the march. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere, the radical Islamists are using a bastardized version of their religion in conjunction with terrorism as a tool to further their political goals; which, if you haven’t noticed, is to install a worldwide caliphate.

If the United States of America leaves Iraq prematurely, the terrorists will win. They will use terrorism and brutality to enslave the people. Then, Al Qaeda won’t just have a few thousand fighters in their army. They will conscript the Iraqi populace resulting in an army of millions.

Would we rather fight a few thousand terrorists now, or pull out of Iraq as the Democrats want and fight millions of terrorists tomorrow?

This is just another example of what dirty frauds and liars the Democrats are. They knew all along they didn’t have a chance for a ridiculous troop withdrawal deadline. But they played politics to appease their liberal base. The Democrats played games until the end, wasting precious time and resources that they could have been using to do the work of the people. Democrats ignored the many to pander to the few.