.

“Your accomplishments have in fact been the stuff of history.”

.

Below is a video the media herd and the Leftist blogs have used as a source of quotes they hope you will find as objectionable as they do.
.

.
.

In this video Ms. Palin  speaks to people in the church she attended for most of her life, from early childhood.   Her tone is informal and familiar as she skips from thought to unrelated thought, enjoying an emotional reunion with beloved old friends.  Quite obviously she is not giving a serious political or theological address.

In Last night’s combative interview Gibson sneered:

You said recently, in your old church, ‘Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.’  Are we fighting a holy war?

Ms. Palin responded by noting that this was not an exact quote, but Gibson snorted, emphatically, “exact quote.”

Well, it was not an exact quote.  Gibson lifted 14 words out of the middle of a rambling, 58 word sentence.  With the portions Gibson deleted in strikeout print, Here is what Ms. Palin actually said in her “old church”, beginning at 3:35 in the video:

Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right, also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God, that’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that it is God’s plan.

After Gibson blatantly lied that he had quoted her exactly, she apparently decided it was futile to keep insisting that he had not.  Instead she cited the theological basis for the thought she had expressed in the video:

…the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.  But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

Then Gibson lied a second time by again lifting a few words out of context from a longer thought:

I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

This is from the same excerpt quoted above.  Here is the complete thought, with the portion Gibson left out in strikeout print:

…that’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that it is God’s plan.

Obviously, Gibson believed he could trip her up and deceive his audience by deliberately, deleting major portions of her thoughts, in order to change the apparent meaning.  And he probably did succeed in deceiving a lot of viewers.  By sourcing Ms. Palin’s casual and intimate stream of consciousness,  as if it were a serious statement of political or theological beliefs, Gibson proved he lacked any record of genuinely objectionable comments by Governor Palin.

Ms. Palin expressed the perfectly reasonable, non-controversial hope and prayer that national leaders might want to act in accordance with God’s will.  But Today’s hyper-secular Left, including the national media reacted as if they thought she had a supernatural power to inflict a black-magic curse on the nation.

Sarah Palin can take comfort in the words of Jesus found in Matthew 5: 11 – 12:

God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you^[c] and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers. Be happy about it! Be very glad! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted in the same way.

O’REILLY: I think you were desperately wrong on the surge, and I think you should admit it to the nation that now we have defeated the terrorists in Iraq, and the Al Qaeda came there after we invaded, as you know. We defeated them…We’ve also inhibited Iran from controlling the southern part of Iraq by the surge, which you did not support. So why won’t you say, “I was right in the beginning. I was wrong about [the surge]“?

OBAMA: If you listen to what I’ve said, and I’ll repeat it right here on this show, I think that there’s no doubt that the violence is down. I believe that that is a testimony to the troops that were sent and General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated, by the way, including President Bush and the other supporters. It has gone very well, partly because of the Anbar situation and the Sunni awakening, partly because of the Shiia military. Look…

O’REILLY: But if it were up to you, there wouldn’t have been a surge.

OBAMA: No, no, no.

O’REILLY: You and Joe Biden, no surge.

OBAMA: Hold on a second, Bill. If you look at the debate that was taking place, we had gone through five years of mismanagement of this war that I thought was disastrous. And the president wanted to double down and continue on an open-ended policy that did not create the kinds of pressure on the Iraqis to take responsibility and reconcile.

O’REILLY: But it worked. It worked. Come on.

OBAMA: Bill, what I’ve said is — I’ve already said it succeed beyond our wildest dreams.

O’REILLY: Why can’t you say, “I was right in the beginning, and I was wrong about the surge”?

OBAMA: Because there’s an underlying problem where what have we done. We have reduced the violence.  But the Iraqis still haven’t taken responsibility, and we still don’t have the kind of political reconciliation. We are still spending, Bill, $10 to $12 billion a month.

From there, O’Reilly moved on to other topics.

Actually, there has been substantial political reconciliation. The process of turning the responsibility for security over to the Iraqis started a year ago and continues.  Last week The Administration reported “satisfactory progress” in 15 of 18 political benchmarks established by Congress at the beginning of the Surge, January, 2001, as a way  to measure progress.  The Anti-Bush, Anti-Iraq Democrats, predictably,  claim progress is too slow.  But the same could certainly be said for the US Congress which will adjourn for the year in about a month without passing a budget or addressing a host of urgent issues.

Democracy is a messy, imprecise business.  To support his untenable position Obama sets a higher standard of efficiency and non-partisan action for a brand new democracy emerging from decades of oppressive dictatorship than could ever be met by the US Congress, or any of the European democracies.  This is a transparent political dodge to avoid acknowledging success in Iraq.

A year ago Al Anbar Province was a violent, lawless no man’s land with Al Qaeda  in control of every significant population center.   Last week, the media sneered and looked away as responsibility for security and protection of the population in Al Anbar was turned over to the Iraqis.  Here’s video from The Department of Defense…
.

Anbar Handover

.

As we reported March the Iraqi government launched a major military operation against Shiite Militias, with Prime Minister al-Maliki, himself a Shiite, personally in command. Defeating these militias was a major Sunni demand because Militiamen had kidnapped and/or killed hundreds of Sunnis. After only 24 hours, Obama, the Anti-Iraq Democrats and the media dismissed the campaign against the militias as a disaster and failure. But they were, of course wrong.  Eventually the operation succeeded and now, the militias have been pacified.

Now, Barack Obama says the surge “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”  Well, it was certainly beyond HIS dreams. At the beginning of the surge  Obama flatly stated there was no possibility of military success, that the new strategies would only make Iraq worse. A month later he introduced legislation that woud have made the surge illegal.

Twice since the beginning of the surge he has voted to cut off funding for the Iraq operation, even as the troops continued their work.  In the interview above he seems to be crediting “the Anbar situation” for the success of the surge strategies rather than acknowledging that the surge strategies brought success to Anbar.

The US military has triumphed in Iraq.  Iraq will become a permanent American ally in the Middle East.  A young generation of Iraqis will grow up with positive memories of American soldiers and a positive attitude toward the United States.

Along the way Barack Obama did everything he could to stop the troops from accomplishing their mission and still cannot bring himself to acknowledge obvious success.  Why?  Two reasons:

1. He would lose the support and votes of the virulent anti-Bush left, and
2. He is too arrogant to admit a mistake, as the interview above demonstrates.

when the news is good. But we will.

The Services just released their recruiting statistics for July and all of them met or exceeded their quotas.

In addition, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps have met or exceeded cumulative retention goals for the Federal fiscal year that ends September 30.

Marine recruiters exceeded their July quota by 17%, even though joining the Marines virtually guarantees a deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan immediately after training.

These are amazing recruiting statistics considering the cultural influences that daily bombard the nation’s youth. Leftist college professors, high profile politicians like John Kerry, the news media, and the entertainment media all strive to convince young people that the troops are victims and military service is for losers or maniacs.

But in July, almost thirty eight thousand of America’s finest young men and women defied the professors, the politicians and Hollywood.

The media herd finds good recruiting news unworthy of publication because it contradicts a core media doctrine: The volunteer military is “broken.” The media are unable to, and don’t try to explain how a broken military could have pulled off such stunning success in Iraq over the past year.

For nearly a year, Barack Obama promised, emphatically, that he would abandon the Iraq operation, even though success was finally a realistic probability, no matter how horrendous the consequences. Recently he grudgingly acknowledged the obvious success of the military strategies called “the surge,” but says he still believes the surge was the wrong thing to do. He doesn’t go so far as to claim the Military is “broken, but he does cite “strain on the military” as a reason why the surge should not have been undertaken, even though it has been spectacularly successful.

He now says that whether or not the Iraqis are fully prepared to repel Al Qaeda and the Iranian-backed terrorists, he will withdraw all combat troops within 16 months, even though such a schedule is logistically impossible. Yet he also says there will be a “residual force” large enough to repel Al Qaeda. And all this comes under what he calls “the mission” he will assign the military on Day One of his administration: “End the war,” a campaign slogan beneath the dignity of the military, and in view of his various contradictory promises, a meaningless phrase.

Military volunteers deserve a leader who can think clearly, in terms of actionable goals that can become valid military missions. They do not deserve a leader like Obama, who tries to find a precarious political balance between what’s obviously best for America, a successful Iraqi democracy, and the demands of his fanatic Left base for failure in Iraq to vindicate their virulent enmity toward George W. Bush.

The all volunteer military is America’s most precious asset. We voters owe the men and women who voluntarily serve us a competent Commander-in-Chief. The Commander-In-Chief need not be a military veteran, but he/she should have learned enough about military operations, strategies and tactics to earn their respect.

Obama bagan the speech with a nod to far-left anti-patriots and world socialists in America and Europe by proclaiming himself “a citizen of the world.” He then tried to elevate himself to the status of statesman and defender of human liberty by invoking the memory of Berliners’ defiance in the face of the Soviet Communists’ 1948 attempt to subjugate West Berlin.

But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city’s mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. “There is only one possibility,” he said. “For us to stand together united until this battle is won. The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty. People of the world, lookat Berlin!”

People of the world — look at Berlin!

Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.

OK, Senator Obama, Look at Iraq! If you want us to see you as a freedom-loving visionary who can lead us into the future then why can’t you look at, and see the potential in Iraq? Iraqis and Americans fight and bleed and work and sweat, shoulder to shoulder, to transform a nation from tyranny to a gleaming example of individual liberty, in the heart of the Middle East, surrounded by millions of people who are enslaved by brutal dictatorships and theocracies.

When Senator Obama had the opportunity to be an idealistic leader in the cause of Liberty he deferred to the defeatist dogma of those in his party who were agitating for failure in Iraq, in order to vindicate their position, that “Bush’s war” was an irreversible disaster.

In January, 2007 President Bush announced the radical change in strategy and tactics, including military, political and economic initiatives and a temporary increase in troop strength that would become known as “The Surge.” Minutes later Senator Obama said in a TV interview:

I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.

A few days later he said:

We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality — we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

In July, 2007 as the intense combat phase of the new strategies and initiatives was in full force, and the troops deserved unqualified support from the home front, Senator Obama appeared on The Today Show and said:

My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.

He has repeatedly tried his best prevent success in Iraq, first by introducing legislation that would have aborted the surge just as it began, and by twice voting to withdraw funds for the Iraq operation, even as US troops were engaged in daily combat. For eleven months he has promised that if elected he will withdraw all combat troops on a predetermined schedule, regardless of the consequences.

In several interviews this week, Obama grudgingly admitted that the surge strategies have brought amazing success. But astoundingly, he still stands in opposition! Why? Here are his reasons:

• Iraq doesn’t matter because it was Bush’s mistake and because Obama, as an Illinois State Senator, opposed the 2003 invasion, and opposed toppling Saddam Hussein.
• He laments spending money could have been spent elsewhere.
• Defeating the major Al Qaeda offensive in Iraq was “a distraction.” The Al Qaeda leaders who organized the 9-11 attacks were, at the time, camped in Afghanistan. So Obama can’t be “distracted” by any Al Qaeda fighters who aren’t in or near Afghanistan.
  

.

The hard-core lefties are enraged by the emerging possibility of success in Iraq that could, eventually, reflect positively on President Bush. For years they have agitated for Congressional action that would result in abandoning the effort, leaving Iraq in chaos, and validating their position that “Bush’s War” was a catastrophe because Bush was evil and stupid.

Yesterday the Obamnia Summer Vanity Tour and Photo-Shoot paused for an interview with Katie Couric. Ms. Couric has apparently felt the jeers and sneers drawn by the media herd’s prostrate worship of Senator Obama, and actually tried to ask a few challenging questions.

Couric:

“You talk about a residual force remaining in Iraq, but you’ve been hesitant to really give a number…some of your advisors have said it could be tens of thousands of troops. Why can’t you be more specific as to what you envision?”

Obama:

Now, keep in mind that when I talk about timetables, people say that’s too specific, with respect to residual force, maybe not specific enough.

No Senator! Being specific is not the problem with a timetable that is announced to the enemies and pursued without regard to the consequences. The problem is that it’s a prescription for throwing away all the gains so far secured at great cost. It’s a plan to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Obama Continued:

My job as commander-in-chief would be to indicate to [Commanders on the ground] here’s our goal, here are the missions that we need to carry out. Now, you tell me what it is that we need in terms of boots on the ground, in terms of equipment, in terms of other capabilities that are gonna be required.

Fair enough. Then how about some detail on that mission? The current mission is to protect the gains that have been made, finish training Iraqi security forces and ensure that democracy ultimately prevails over terrorism. The Commanders on the ground say they can’t accomplish that mission with fewer troops, and that Obama’s withdrawal schedule would jepordize that mission.

So what would Obama’s new mission be? What parts of the current mission would he abandon? Obama has said his new mission would be “end the war.” Of course, the best way to really end the war is to stick with the current strategy and tactics. But Obama insists on abandoning the current strategy and tactics. So what does “end the war” mean? What are the commanders supposed to do, exactly?

Couric:

“If General Petraeus or the chairman of the joint chiefs, Admiral Mullen, say … “you cannot take out the final complement of combat troops. You need them in the theater,” you would say?”

Obama:

I will always listen to the commanders on the ground. And I will make an assessment based on the facts at that time. As I’ve said before … I am not interested in a false choice between either perfect inflexibility in which the next 16 months or the next two years I ignore anything that’s happening in Iraq. Or, alternatively, that I just have an open-ended, indefinite occupation of Iraq in which we’re not putting any pressure on the Iraqis to stand up and … take this burden on. What I’m gonna do is to set a vision of where we need to go, a clear and specific timeframe within which we’re gonna pull our combat forces out.

So the Senator rejects the “false choice” of inflexibility, but He is going to set “a clear and specific timeframe within which were gunna pull our combat forces out.” He was flexible before he was inflexibile?

Couric:

“And base your decision still on conditions on the ground as well?”

Obama:

Well, as I said before … I would not be doing my job if I’m not paying attention to the facts.

How cynically clever. He’ll “pay attention to the facts” – if that’s his job. BUT, he will pull combat forces out within his specific, predetermined timeframe.

Couric:

“… you raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, Why?”

Obama:

Well … because … what I was referring to, and I’ve consistently referred to, is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

Why can’t Obama admit that the current mission is to prepare the Iraqis to assume total, sovereign control of their country, so US troops can leave? The current strategies are designed to support that mission, and they are working. He can’t acknowledge the obvious because of the elephant in the room; He needs the votes of the Bush-hating, anti-war base that believe their own hype: Iraq is a lost cause, success is impossible and “Bush’s war” is a catastrophe.

Couric:

“But talking microcosmically, did the surge, the addition of 30,000 additional troops … help the situation in Iraq?”

Katie oversimplifies because she apparently hasn’t made the effort to understand that adding troops was only one of several changes made eighteen months ago. those changes have resulted in what even obama finally, grudgingly admits is a dramatic improvement. The additional troops were needed to implement General Petreaus’ brilliant counter-insurgency and nation-rehabilitation strategies, that are still on-going.

Obama:

Katie, as … you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped to reduce violence. There’s no doubt.

Couric:

“But yet you’re saying … given what you know now, you still wouldn’t support it … so I’m just trying to understand this.”

Obama:

Because … it’s pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 billion to $12 billion a month, $200 billion, that’s money that could have gone into Afghanistan….That money also could have been used to shore up a declining economic situation in the United States.

So finally, after weeks of intense campaign debate over strategy and tactics in Iraq, after failing to make sense out of his contradictions, after failing to outwit even Kutsie Katie, Our Messiah and President-In-Waiting Barack Obama gives up and falls back on whining about…

The Money.

When President Bush ordered the surge strategies Senator Obama parroted the position of the leftist base. He said he was against the surge because it would make Iraq worse.

Now, he claims he was opposed, and is still opposed to the surge which he admits is a success because it costs too much money!

The bottom line, here at the bottom of the post, is voters are not informed by obama’s too-clever tap dance. All we really know about Obama is his skill at whipping up an emotional response from a crowd at a campaign event. If he becomes President will he ignore the virulent Bush-hating, Anti-Iraq fringe voters who get the credit for securing his nomination? Or, would he risk losing Iraq? The truth is we don’t know because he doesn’t know.

.

After claiming to have been inspired by America’s initial efforts to win the cold war, Senator Obama referred to the the 9-11 attacks:

The attacks of September 11 brought this new reality into a terrible and ominous focus…But the depth of this tragedy also drew out the decency and determination of our nation. At blood banks and vigils; in schools and in the United States Congress, Americans were united..The world, too, was united against the perpetrators of this evil act, as old allies, new friends, and even long-time adversaries stood by our side.

He went on to assert that If only the President and Congress had decided not to upset the status quo and had just left Saddam and his two maniacal sons in charge of Iraq, that in the months and years after 9/11 “WE,” which apparently means the government, could have accomplished all of the following…

• Hunted down and destroyed Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11,
• Supported real security in Afghanistan.
• Secured loose nuclear materials around the world.
• updated a 20th century nuclear non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.
• Invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy.
• Strengthened old alliances.
• formed new partnerships.
• Renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.
• Called on a new generation to…serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.
• Secured our homeland—investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.
• Rebuilt roads and bridges.
• Laid down new rail.
• Built new broadband systems.
• Built new electricity systems.
• Made college affordable for every American.

But alas, according to Barack Obama, none of these wonderful things happened, and all these needs cry out, only because The President and the Congress decided to depose Saddam’s regime and take on the challenge of birthing and nurturing a new democracy and ally against terror, in the heart of the Middle east.

.

Unfortunately, nobody in the media herd will ask any of the obvious questions:

Is there a broadband shortage? If so, are communication companies unwilling to invest in broadband because Saddam isn’t still running Iraq?

Is there a need for more railroads? If so, how has the Iraq operation prevented investors from building railroads?

What keeps investors from building electric power plants? Is it the mission to create a new Iraqi nation? Or, is it the same Congressionally imposed barriers that keep oil companies from extracting any more of America’s plentiful crude oil?

Would there be fewer unsecured nuclear materials around the world if Saddam still ran Iraq?

Would college be less expensive if Saddam was still running Iraq?

Several companies are investing Billions in new sources of energy. Were they investing more before the Iraq operation?

The recently elected leaders of France, Germany and England have each made high-visibility trips to America to affirm their nation’s alliance with the US and express solidarity with President bush. Didn’t Obama notice?

If the homeland isn’t secure then why haven’t we suffered the follow-up attacks every knowledgeable authority predicted were virtually certain after 9-11?

Are there lose nuclear materials because Saddam is no longer in power?

Is Obama saying there aren’t enough young people to fill openings for soldiers, teachers, police officers and peace corps? Does he think more young people would be interested in those jobs if Saddam were still in power?

.

It all comes from one, single poll question

In recent months Iraq has calmed down and other matters, such as gas prices and mortgage misery have forced Obama to modify his campaign messages. But in the beginning the foundation of Obama’s campaign for President was the response to one opinion poll question, that has been asked a over and over by every pollster. The most recent ABC news/Washington Post Poll’s version of the question is:

All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the was with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?

The most recent data, from 1,119 random adults (not prequalified as registered or likely voters) was:

Worth It: 36%;

Not Worth It: 63%

Barack Obama’s initial primary and caucus victories were achieved by fully exploiting this one bit of polling data, by claiming that he was against the Iraq operation before it began.   He designed this speech to attach powerful emotion to the “not worth it” sentiment, to plant in the minds of voters the notion that a virtual utopia would have emerged from the rubble of 9-11, if only we had left Saddam’s Iraq as it was.

It will be interesting to see if the voters make this leap with him.

More analysis in the next post.

Comments Welcome!

Obama’s responses to the press weren’t a flip-flop, they were a loafer; intellectually lazy equivocations. His position is dangerous because he appears to believe that as President he can direct the military with the lose, imprecise language he uses to stir up emotions at campaign events.

The background information to understand this latest controversy is the following promise that has been on Senator Obama’s website for ten months:

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. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

At first glance this seems fairly firm. After just a bit of examination it goes flabby.

What does “build a base” mean? Is that a physical, military base? Is it a base of support? A term of art?

Al Qaeda is a guerrilla/terrorist force that eschews conventional military bases that are easily destroyed from the air, preferring to hide among the terrorized and intimidated population. What happens if Al Qaeda, predictably, fills the power vacuum left by departing Americans, by building “a base” of thousands of terrorists living among the population? Will President Obama order troops back into Iraq to fight Al Qaeda, house to house, and defeat them all over again?

What about the other factions that have attacked Iraqi troops, civilians and infrastructure? What will they do if America pulls out before completing the mission of fully preparing Iraqi security forces to pacify the country? Obama’s vacuous withdrawal proposal simply ignores these questions.

Obama’s two press conferences further blurred his position, and could be interpreted as contradicting or modifying the web-site language. In the morning he said:

I said that based on the information that we had received from our commanders that one to two brigades a month could be pulled out safely, from a logistical perspective.

From a logistical perspective, the sixteen month schedule is impossible if the plan includes bringing back all American owned vehicles, weapons, medical facilities and equipment. But Obama doesn’t address that concern.

My guiding approach continues to be that we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable. I’m going to continue to gather information to find out whether those conditions still hold.”

Here are two conditions not in the website version: troop safety and stability. Maintaining the current level of stability in Iraq is incompatible with announcing a withdrawal schedule that apparently will continue regardless of evolving conditions. Beginning withdrawal before Iraq has the political stability, military forces and infrastructure to resist terrorist attacks only invites those terrorist enemies to gather their strategic and tactical resources to take maximum advantage of American retreat.

At the afternoon press conference, Obama “clarified” his position:

Let me be as clear as I can be: I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war, responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.

What does “end the war” mean? What is “the war” in Obama’s mind?

Obama’s website claims Iraq is in the throws of an on-going civil war and political leaders have made no progress in resolving any differences. If he really believes there’s a civil war, then he has to be a fool if he thnks it will end because America retreats. One wonders how he could speak to the press about maintaining “stability” if he believes a civil war is in progress.

In truth, the “civil war” label had a thread of validity before the surge but today it’s empty rhetoric, pandering to the anti-war left. The attacks against Iraqi civilians, troops and infrastructure by terrorists and criminals have declined dramatically in the fifteen months of the counter-insurgency strategies known as “the surge.” At the same time the number of Iraqi troops trained and able to go on the offensive against these enemies has dramatically increased. But the job isn’t done yet.

For years The Mission has been to, using Obama’s words, “end the war, responsibly, deliberately and decisively” by enabling Iraq’s brand new military and brand new political institutions to prevail over the enemies of the Iraqi People. Since the start of the counter-insurgency surge the military has made tremendous progress toward accomplishing this mission.

Obama’s so-called mission, an announced withdrawal of US troops, on a predetermined schedule, before the Iraqis are prepared to ensure their own security, couldn’t possibly end to the war. The war would escalate and Iraq would descend into years of unthinkably barbaric violence and chaos as Iranian backed terrorists, Al Qaeda, and various militias fought for control.

Here’s the brutal truth: “End The War” is a bumper-sticker, contrived to draw an emotional response from crowds at campaign events. An American surrender can not cause the war to end. When Obama looks into the camera and tells us, with a straight face, that a vapid campaign slogan will become The Mission of the United States Military he exposes himself as either a blithering fool, or a narcissistic personality who believes he can hoodwink everyone else with clever words.

Update:

One of Barack Obama’s media cheer leaders, ABC News, gets it: Withdrawal on a predetermined, 16 month schedule, before the Iraqis are able to maintain security on their own, is a logistical impossibility

.

Virtually all American troops had come home from Vietnam, after training the South Vietnamese army to take over defense of their country, with the support of US supplied arms and material. The Communists in the North were exhausted and about to give up the fight when the United States Congress, dominated by anti-war Democrats, cut off support, dooming our allies in the South to defeat.

On April 30, 1975, as the whole world watched on TV, The last Marine helicopters lifted off the roof of the besieged American Embassy, evacuating the last Embassy personnel and Marine guards, and perhaps a thousand extremely fortunate Vietnamese who had been loyal to America, to an aircraft carrier in the South China Sea. Left behind were tens of thousands of other loyal Vietnamese who eventually were tortured and/or slaughtered by the conquering army of the Communist Regime.

Here are some scenes from that day of American shame, including the panic at the embassy. On the carrier Sailors and Marines had to shove several helicopters into the ocean to make room for more incoming helicopters full of desperate evacuees. Also seen are some of the first “boat people” waiting to be taken aboard and evacuated to America.

.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

We thought Liberty Works readers should know what the Senator was referring to.

Future Combat Systems (FCS) is the name of a top priority program that is critical to making soldiers more effective and reducing combat injuries and deaths.

FCS is the Army’s promise to provide Soldiers the best equipment and technology available as soon as practical. FCS is not just a technology development program-it is the development of new Brigade Combat Teams, with more infantry, better equipment, and greatly improved situational awareness and communications.

FCS technologies and innovations enable our troops to prevail in asymmetric ground warfare, while allowing the Army to build a force that can sustain itself in remote areas. FCS Components include an array of new vehicles, weapons and information gathering systems.

For example, Unattended Ground Sensors (UGS), pictured below, perform mission tasks such as perimeter defense, surveillance, target acquisition and situational awareness. UGS can detect the presence of Chemical, Radiological, and Nuclear weaponry.

These devices provide vital tactical information to the troops without risking any lives.

Just yesterday, Lt. Gen. Michael A. Vane, director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center, discussed the cutting-edge equipment in a teleconference with bloggers and online journalists. He announced that the Army will accelerate delivery of key Future Combat System technologies to troops in the field, including some of the unattended ground sensors described above, a new unmanned air vehicle and a small unmanned ground vehicle.

“We want technology to enable that soldier and that commander to better understand the battlefield,” General Vane said. “And sometimes people think we’re building something that’s a fantasy or that technology is the answer to everything, and we absolutely are not. What we are doing is trying to leverage that technological advantage that American industry and Americans’ allies help us bring to the battlefield.”

We Americans owe the courageous volunteers who serve in the US Army no less than the best equipment and technology we can possibly provide.

Why would Senator Obama promise to target such a vital program for “slow-development” at the very moment our troops are engaged in combat several fronts?

Readers Invited to Comment