On Thursday, President Barack Obama stated that he will not make a decision on Afghan troop levels until after the Thanksgiving holiday. This development came at the end of President Obama’s eight-day Asia tour, where he took time to stop at Osan Air Force Base in South Korea. While there, he remarked to 1,500 troops, “You guys make a pretty good photo op.”

-

That says a lot, doesn’t it? Upon examination, photo-ops certainly seem to be President Obama’s main concern. If you will recall, just a few weeks ago, Obama visited Dover Air Force Base in Delaware as some of our fallen servicemen were brought home to rest. For reasons unbeknownst to many, the president thought it would be appropriate to allow cameras at the event. Most families were made uneasy by this, and in fact, only one family allowed cameras to follow their proceedings.

Because of that, his visit came off as self-serving, especially when contrasted with former President George W. Bush’s visit to Fort Hood, where he insisted that no press be permitted.

The underlying point of all this, is that President Obama only seems interested in our armed servicemen and women when he can use them as a prop to get his picture taken or to get himself on television.

It has been weeks since General Stanley McChrystal requested an additional 40,000 troops for the effort in Afghanistan, and in the process making it emphatically clear that this was indeed necessary, claiming that the effort was not sustainable with current resources. On top of that, General McChrystal was only able to secure a 25-minute meeting to make the request in the first place.

Something is desperately wrong here.

Does anybody remember the campaign, where Obama insisted that Afghanistan was a top priority? The war we should be most focused on, if you will? What happened to that?

The answer to that is simple. It was nothing more than a campaign promise. It has become quite clear that our Commander-in-Chief clearly has no interest in our effort there, and by extension, it shows exactly what he actually thinks of our troops, which is, not much.

You have to pay attention to what Obama is saying here, and the words that he uses. He is saying he will not make a decision until after Thanksgiving. He’s not saying he won’t commit more troops until after then. This is nothing short of him saying “Yeah, I’m going to continue to put this off until at least after turkey is served.”

Brave sons and daughters dying over there on a daily basis, and our president is content to dither and play games with American lives and American security. This is clearly a tactic he is using in an effort to placate his left wing base, military advisors and cost to America be damned.

This man has already made his decision, and deep down we all know what it is. He may finally be forced at some point to send additional resources at some point, but he clearly has no real interest in doing so.

The only future Barack Obama is interested in is his own.

Via Krista in Google Reader, comes this fantastic rant from actor Gary Graham. Here’s an excerpt, but you MUST go read the whole thing. Some liberal pissed in that guy’s cornflakes, and we all need to know about it!

You see, I’m one pissed-off dude.

I’m told I’ll hurt my career if I continually spout off about Liberalism — which I see as a growing cancer in our society. Worldwide, I’ve seen Liberalism metastasize into virulent incarnations of Socialism, and, left unchecked, even into its malignant cousin, Communism. Only the arrogant or the somnambulist would think such a thing could never happen here. It’s a matter of increment. Once a group organizes into a coalition, it’s a short step to claiming the right to the property of another group. All that is necessary is for an individual’s right to personal property to become a secondary concern. The ‘needs’ of the group must supercede, dontcha know. It’s a vicious cycle – wants become needs become rights. The fact that the thievery is done at the behest of a ‘civilized’ government does not sanitize the crime.

So I’m told I should shut up. I make my living in the Hollywood community, and Hollywood is by and large run by Liberals. I’m told I need to stay quiet when the Left has their way over issues that affect my daily life. I’m told I need to learn how to get along with the Left, learn how to compromise. I need to be more open-minded. I need to be more tolerant.

I don’t want to get along with the Left. I want to take them down. I want to expose their idiocy for what it is and reveal it as a harmful, dangerous succession of lies and deceptions. My friends say that that effort, aside from being fruitless, will cost me work. It will cost me my career. And I say Wait-a-minute, Bucko. Those folks who founded this country were willing to risk not only their careers, but their property, their families, their very lives…the least I can do in standing up for our precious freedoms is risk a silly television career. Not to compare myself with the brilliant thinkers who declared themselves independent of England and framed our Constitution…but those were some pretty pissed off dudes too. Compared to that, loss of a little TV or movie work seems pretty inconsequential. So in honor of Pissed Off Americans past and present, I rant.

Bottom line to take away: I hereby declare my independence…from the small-minded, America-hating, race-bating, Christian-bashing, class-warfare-waging, politically-correct, collectivist, Liberal Hollywood establishment.

This man will never work again.

Looking back over the past year there are two men who have been made into myths by the general public and I thought I would take a moment and talk about them. The first is the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. Now I have met this man at a cathedral in Ottawa some years ago and perhaps more importantly I studied this style of meditation for years with some really good teachers and have done retreats with some masters of this kind of discipline. So you can imagine my gorge rising when I was stuck on a bus for two and a half hours with a bunch of idiots clogging traffic to get to see him at Ottawa’s Civic Center on Bank street having remade him into their image. The Hippie King.

If you actually read his stuff or listen to what the man says, he does not diverge wildly from the pope on the usual issues of greatest concern to the western post hippie bureaucrat class. He is anti homosexuality, not for free love of any kind, socially conservative and believes in self sacrifice and discipline. But to these bozo’s he was the hippie king. A kind of socialist guru. As usual, they confused their religion or lack thereof, with his. That day I was over an hour late for work and the bus moved so slowly down bank street clogged with people anxious to get a look at the god they created that a couple of times, I got off the bus and had a liesurly smoke as I walked to the next bus stop and got back on the same one. Good thing I kept my transfer. I suppose whats consistent about these two cases and so many more is the aspect of projection. People just want to imbue their own beliefs on someone else and worship them. This if for no other reason might be a good reason to appreciate Jesus. He must have been so damn annoyed on that cross.

The second is Barry Obama. Now understand that for eight years when the irrational left would foam rabidly about Bush I would patiently argue the points and try and talk people down from the overdose of sanctimony they had taken. Usually this would be after hours days or weeks of research on the issues on the table to see if there was any merit to them at all. I had to become a relative expert on a number of subjects of little to no interest to me but they had become rallying points for angry hate filled people who, like the ones worshiping the Dalai Lama for things he is not, loathed G.W. Bush for things he never did or said. It was anoying on so many levels. One of the more trivial ones is that I never got the chance to actually make any attacks of my own to US policy or GWB because I had to spend my time defending both the US and Bush for things they where being accused of which had no basis in reality at all. I suppose my favorote memory of this is when i was having lunch with a couple I know and some of their friends. A women I had never met before was accross from me on a patio on a magnificent summer day and out of the blue she said “Everyone hates George Bush” and all I said was, “I don’t hate him” and she blew a freaking gasket at me. She was furious with me for failing to hate someone she hated. This is the kinder gentler left and she was a doctor for the Canadian military for Thor’s sake. This brings me to Obama who I call ‘Bush Dark’. Now understand that I worked as hard as I could to advise my American friends to vote GOP to the extent a Canadian can without being a complete toadstool. But shortly after Obama won the election I noticed a few things. Even before taking office he was dealing with reality. He has identical positions on important foreign policies as Bush does, he did not take the bait from Iran, most of his pre election leftist noise was just that (so far) He is talking tough with Pakistan and seems to be a good friend of Israel. So far, he is Bush dark and I think he may be even more effective than Bush by the Vulcan principle. You know the idea, to quote the Venerable Spock “It takes a Nixon to go to China” it takes someone perceived as a soft touch to be able to send the thunder down without Code Pink having collective apoplexy. I do recall a certain Bill Clinton managing to bomb the snot out of Belgrade without accusations of ‘Bill lied people died’ and other such hyperbole. There are still troops there in the Balkans I believe. No protests though to bring them home. So maybe Bush dark is the guy to get the job done without so much domestic interference.

What was interesting is the exact same people who used to love me as their mouthpiece when it came to dealing with what we have lovingly called those with “Bush derangement syndrome” loath me now when I point out actual facts about Obama that seem to show a man who is dealing with reality (so far) and perhaps more discouragingly, the same people who enjoyed it when I took apart irrational and untrue accusations against Bush now make similar irrational accusations against Barry.

I guess people really don’t care about the player so much as the jersey he is wearing. Even when he is on your team.

James Cohen

[As an aside, one day I got so frustrated with Bush critics that I decided I was going to send George a gift. So I mailed him a copy of my newest CD and a nice letter complimenting him on how he had IMO done a good job in what was likely the most difficult administration since Abe Lincoln. The white house was thoughtful enough to send me back this letter which I framed and mounted on the wall.]

Much has been made of the report that Obama has offered to give Israel a ‘nuclear shield’ as a defence against likely Iranian nuclear attacks. I was asked to give my opinion in email to this issue and thought I would post the report and my answer here. I would very much welcome in comments any of your thoughts to this issue. How you guys feel about Iran’s ambitions and what the best courses of action might be.

First the report and comments from the MSM then my response then hopefully some of yours…

U.S.-ISRAEL COLLISION
Published on TheHill.com on December 16, 2008

With the election of Barack Obama, the United States has moved dramatically to the left in its foreign policy at just the time that Israel, which seems likely to return Bibi Netanyahu to office in early February, is moving to the right. A collision is almost inevitable.

Caroline Glick, the highly astute conservative columnist for the Jerusalem Post, writes that the “international community” believes that Obama “will move quickly to place massive pressure on the next Israeli government to withdraw from Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the interests of advancing a ‘peace process’ with the Palestinians and the Syrians.” She notes that “people who have been in close contact with Obama’s foreign policy transition team have privately acknowledged that the widespread belief that Obama will move swiftly to put the screws on Israel is fully justified. According to one source who has spent a great deal of time with the transition team since last month’s U.S. elections, Obama’s people are ’scope-locked’ on Israel.”

Meanwhile, in Israel, there is a growing consensus, reflected in public opinion surveys, that trading land for peace is a chimera. Netanyahu points out that “we do not have a viable partner with whom to negotiate peace.” The Palestinian Authority does not speak for the people of either Gaza or the West Bank, and Hamas, which probably does (it won the election), does not want to be a party to any peace agreement. Recent experience suggests that Hamas will quickly install rocket launchers on any territory Israel concedes, using it not as a basis for peace, but as a platform from which to kill more Jews.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the candidates of the left, Labor’s Ehud Barak and Kadima’s Tzipi Livni, are deeply committed to land for peace. Their rejection by the Israeli electorate — the anticipated outcome of the Feb. 10 election — will signal a bold departure in the political consensus of the Jewish state, a consensus that flies directly in the face of Obama’s likely policy.

The difference between the U.S. and Israel also extends to the realm of how strongly they oppose Iranian development of nuclear weapons. While Iran moves closer and closer to a bomb that could and will be used against Israel, Obama speaks of extending the American “nuclear umbrella” to cover Israel.

Reading between the lines, this means that he doesn’t think he can stop Iranian nuclear ambitions and will retreat to a policy of deterrence, accepting a nuclear Iran in the bargain.

If Netanyahu wins the election, he will bring with him a determination to stop Iranian nuclear weapons, no matter what, and a refusal to concede more territory in the name of the peace process. But Obama’s foreign policy team will be focusing on pushing Israel in just the opposite direction.

The result is likely to be the most significant divergence between Israeli and American policies since 1956, when President Eisenhower sided with the Arabs to halt the British-French-Israeli invasion of Suez.

The United States has tremendous leverage over Israel — military, financial and political. And Obama’s ability to carry the Jewish vote by a wide margin despite his likely Middle East policy makes him largely immune to the kind of political pressure that has disciplined American presidents in the past and forced them to incline toward accommodating Israeli views on the Middle East.

But Israel probably has the military capacity to bomb Iran and to win the Middle East war against Syria, Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah that is likely to result. Unlike Olmert, Netanyahu will use ground troops right off the bat and will fight such a war to win and to win big. But they may have to do it without their strongest ally: the United States.

Although I didn’t deal with every aspect of this article, itself a kind of ‘chimera’ I did focus on the issue of Iran the US and Israel….

some of this is good but like most stuff I read on the matter it seems under informed.
I so far at least do not see Obama’s admin as fundamentally different than Bush’s.

There are strong rumors of Obama offering to set up a ‘nuclear umbrella’ for Israel but in fact there is already a US base operating an ABM site and has been for some time albeit a ’secret’ one so Obama’s offer is nothing at all new.

What’s worth looking at is the idea that the US strategy is one of defense of Israel to Iranian nuclear missiles as opposed to preventing Iran from developing these weapons. It would appear that Iran will develop the capability for a nuclear device if they have not already done so and may in the coming years be able to develop an actual deliverable weapon.

Let’s put ourselves in the position of Iran for a moment…

We have a massive economic crisis. For the first time we are issuing debt bonds, something we are normally opposed to as an instrument. We use Islam as the tie that binds for a large number of disparate groups within Iran. The negative focus is the USA and Israel to try and keep our people united despite massive poverty and growing oppression at home. Our budget is based on a minimum USD $60.00 per barrel oil price and Iran’s crappy oil cannot get over $30.00 $PB at the moment and probably less, so Iran is sliding into more and more debt.

should we decide to go ahead with expensive nuclear weapons programs the thing to do would be distract the world with new missile tests and purchases from Russia and then build a shitty primitive nuclear device aboard a large ship and detonate it off the coast of Israel while everyone is busy with super high tech missile defense systems.

this is what I would do if I was Iran.
I tend to agree that any attempt to eradicate Iran’s program is probably not practical. It would mean a rapid end to the Obama admin for one thing. He would have to use all his political capitol up as it would be a near impossible sell at home if indeed it was even possible logistically. There is no point in destroying the facilities. You have to kill the people with the know how. This means you would have to have a surprise attack in order to be effective as the equipment is cheap and easily replaced and wouldn’t set the program back much at all. Chances are they have a lot of U235 available and ready now. The scarce resource is the technicians who have the know how to actually do anything with it.

Iran has been somewhat masterful at deception and stalling. Its a safe bet most of what we know is a dodge. The chinese bomb design is likely not what they are making. a simple U235 bomb needing a minimal of know how is probably what they are going for and it would be easy to construct this aboard a ship. something the size of Hiroshima bomb, maybe 15 or 20 kilotons would do to destroy Tel Aviv or more likely if they could, launch it high enough to create an EMP which would effectively set Israel back to pre 1900s technology and make it easy pickings for ground forces.

In any of these cases I find the analysis I see of Obama’s offer of a Nuclear shield to be lacking in decent information. It isn’t new and it doesn’t tell us anything we need to know.

If there is an attack on Iran’s facilities planned, as I said it would have to be a surprise. So the more we hear about one the less likely it is to happen.

More meaningfully the bickering over ABM systems for central Europe are indicators that the US is planning to defend against Iranian missiles as opposed to ending Iran’s capability to acquire them.

This seems to me a more telling example of US policy. That they are ready to incur Russia’s wrath for a system most definitely intended to defend against Iranian threats to Europe.

This movie is rather excellent. Please do watch the whole thing and then decide how you feel about the US Iraq mission. I tend to agree with Chris Hitchens. If for no other reason than humanitarian alone Saddam had to be removed.
Posted by James Cohen for Right Girl

You’re looking pretty good for someone 232 years old!

Ted Kennedy. A long-standing politician from a historical political family. He is the remaining brother of two murdered men who were his betters. He is the son of a bootlegger.

Like all families, the Kennedys have had their good, their great, and their unfortunate.

Edward Kennedy is also a murderer. Unlike Jack, and unlike Bobby. Ted caused a young woman to die. He cut short a life before it really began, and then used his family’s money and sway to cover his ass. He set a precedent for future Kennedys to shrug off the consequences of their actions. He truly is a product of Joe the Bootlegger.

Edward Kennedy is not a terrorist. He is not Osama bin Laden or Yassir Arafat. I will not dance at his demise. He is an American senator of long standing, and he deserves respect.

But before we all get whipped up in the frenzy of pre-mourning being perpetrated by the media, I suggest we do our utmost to put things in perspective. Has Ted Kennedy’s service to the nation been enough to wipe the stain of murder from his hands? And can we please spare a thought - as he goes into the great beyond - for the woman who long predeceased him. The woman who never had a chance to shine.

Which, given my overall temperment, is a surprise.

Yesterday a new Facbook group was created by the Republican students of Clarion University in Pennsylvania (I met some of them at CPAC).

Bring Wendy Home (you have to have a Facebook login to see it)

Jaycey remembered the story I told over breakfast the morning we saw the President, of how I started my life believing Canada was a part of America, and that Reagan was our president. Only to be devastated and feel totally robbed when my father explained that we were two seperate countries. Oh the humanity!

So now these students want to bring me “home”. It is such a nice gesture, and as usual makes me feel more American than I do Canadian.

You have so much to be thankful for. I hope you count the fact that you are America, American, Free among those things you are thankful for this year.