Archive for the ‘Afghanistan’ Category

No Substitute for Victory: Teachable Moment for Obama

July 24, 2009

Barack Obama: I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.”

“There is no Substitute for Victory” General Douglas MacArthur

Note to Obama: Hirohito did not come down to the Battleship Missouri and sign anything! Rachel Abrams at Weekly Standard Blog points out today:

Apparently your grandfather wasn’t there for the Japanese surrender, and thus didn’t take you on his knee when you were a child to teach you all about it. So here’s a little history lesson: See that guy in the picture signing the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on board the USS Missouri? Well, he’s not the Emperor Hirohito, he’s Japanese foreign affairs minister Mamoru Shigemitsu, (see photo below)

My opinion: Any Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces who sends our military into war without a clear goal of, and mandate for, “victory” should be removed and impeached! This is a stab in the back to our military who are drilled and taught that their objective is to defeat the enemy and achieve “victory”.

Wagner Todd Huston at NewsBusters writes today:

It is telling that when Barack Obama pictures “victory” he doesn’t see in his head that famous photo of the U.S. Sailor kissing the pretty girl in Times Square on Victory Day. Instead, what is immediately conjured up in Obama’s mind is the bedraggled figure of a beaten Japanese Emperor groveling at the feet of U.S. military might.

Obama’s sympathy seems to be with the Emperor that governed a nation that tried to viciously take over the entire Pacific Rim and enslave many millions of Asian peoples. It is hard to escape the feeling that Obama’s first thought when the word “victory” is broached is of our enemy, his sympathies with them, not us.

Japanese Surrender Party Sept 2, 1945 Hirohito Not Present

Japanese Surrender Party, Hirohito Not Present!


Identification of personages in the Japanese Delegation on the Battleship Missoure:
Surrender of Japan, Tokyo Bay, 2 September 1945

Japanese representatives on board USS Missouri (BB-63) during the surrender ceremonies, 2 September 1945.
Standing in front are:
Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu (wearing top hat) and General Yoshijiro Umezu, Chief of the Army General Staff.
Behind them are three representatives each of the Foreign Ministry, the Army and the Navy. They include, in middle row, left to right:
Major General Yatsuji Nagai, Army;
Katsuo Okazaki, Foreign Ministry;
Rear Admiral Tadatoshi Tomioka, Navy;
Toshikazu Kase, Foreign Ministry, and
Lieutenant General Suichi Miyakazi, Army.
In the the back row, left to right (not all are visible):
Rear Admiral Ichiro Yokoyama, Navy;
Saburo Ota, Foreign Ministry;
Captain Katsuo Shiba, Navy, and
Colonel Kaziyi Sugita, Army.
(Identities those in second and third rows are from an annotated photograph in Naval Historical Center files.)

Photograph from the Army Signal Corps Collection in the U.S. National Archives.

Advertisements

Obama Was Prepared to Lose in Iraq….

July 21, 2008

“….if Barack Obama’s policy had been implemented in Iraq, he couldn’t be in Iraq today….he was prepared to accept retreat and defeat..no question Senator Obama was prepared to lose in Iraq..” (Senator Joseph Lieberman, Fox News Sunday July 20)

On the occasion of Senator Obama’s visit to Iraq Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace featured a spirited exchange between Senator Bayh (D.Indiana) and our Senator Joe Lieberman. Excerpts follow:

LIEBERMAN: Look, the fact is that if Barack Obama’s policy on Iraq had been implemented, Barack Obama couldn’t go to Iraq today. It wouldn’t be safe. Barack Obama and John McCain saw the same difficulty in Iraq.

John McCain had the guts to argue against public opinion, to put his whole campaign on the line, because, as he says, he’d rather lose an election than lose in a war that he thinks is this important to the United States.

The reason I say Barack — if Barack Obama’s policy couldn’t — had been implemented — if Barack Obama’s policy in Iraq had been implemented, he couldn’t be in Iraq today is because he was prepared to accept retreat and defeat.

And that would mean today Al Qaida would be in charge of parts of Iraq. Iranian-backed extremists would be in charge of other parts of Iraq. There’d be civil war and maybe even genocide.

And the fact is that we are winning in Iraq today. And you know, you can’t choose, as Senator Obama seems to think, to lose in Iraq so you can win in Afghanistan.

The reality is if we lost in Iraq, which Obama was prepared to do, we would go to Afghanistan as losers. Instead, Al Qaida has its tail tucked between its legs as it’s exiting Iraq to go….

WALLACE: …. I want to move on to the whole issue of his (Obama’s) trip this week.

Senator Lieberman, the McCain camp seems divided about whether this is a legitimate fact-finding trip or a political stunt. After McCain and the Republican Party taunted Obama for not going to Iraq, has that, in fact, backfired on them by making this an even bigger story?

LIEBERMAN: No, I don’t think so. I think John McCain’s challenge to Barack Obama is very important. And frankly, it says a lot more than whether McCain was right about Iraq and Obama was wrong.

It says what kind of leaders these people will be as president. Obama reached — John McCain reached a decision about what to do in Iraq based on what he saw there, what he heard — what he heard from the generals and from the soldiers, and then he had the guts to fight big interests to see – – including public opinion, to see that that would happen.

Senator Obama was taking positions about Iraq to put us on a rigid time line to get all troops out by March 2008 — all combat troops. That’s what he said. That would have been accepting defeat there. And I think what it says about the two of them — this is the kind of president John McCain will be on the economy. We’re in crisis. We need a president who will listen, learn, decide what’s right for the country, not what’s right for their political campaign, and fight for the American people to make…

Source: Real Clear Politics

Famous Blue Burqa….

July 13, 2008


And what can I tell you my brother, my killer
What can I possibly say?
I guess that I miss you, I guess I forgive you
Im glad you stood in my way.
(L Cohen: “Famous Blue Raincoat”)

These unfortunate women were accused of prostituting themselves to U.S. military and American contractors and were dispatched by the Taliban.
The women, dressed in blue burqas, were shot and killed just outside Ghazni city in central Afghanistan, said Sayed Ismal, a spokesman for Ghazni’s governor. He called the two “innocent local people”.

Source: Breitbart

Vets for Freedom: Finish the Job….

July 6, 2008

This is the new ad from Vets for Freedom. This is going out nationwide. You can help defray the cost here.

Treachery 5, Rule of Law 4: Defeat for the Nation….

June 13, 2008

Making law from the bench, five out of control, radical leftist Supreme Court justices* ignored the constitution and precedent to allow overseas detained terrorists, “unlawful enemy combatants”,access to civilian courts here at home. Never before in our history as a nation have prisoners of war been entitled to constitutional protections. Constitutional scholar, and one of our best legal minds, Mark Levin has this to say about the tragic decision:

“….what was once considered inconceivable is now compelled by the Constitution, or so five justices have ruled. I fear for my country. I really do. And AP, among others, reports this story as a defeat for “the Bush administration.” Really? I see it as a defeat for the nation.”

I am publishing the entire Levin piece below; it is deserving of a wide audience.

The Gitmo Defeat [Mark R. Levin]

While I am still reviewing the 5-4 decision written by Anthony Kennedy, apparently giving GITMO detainees access to our civilian courts, at the outset I am left to wonder whether all POWs will now have access to our civilian courts? After all, you would think lawful enemy combatants have a better claim in this regard than unlawful enemy combatants. And if POWs have access to our civilian courts, how do our courts plan to handle the thousands, if not tens of thousands of cases, that will be brought to them in future conflicts?

It has been the objective of the left-wing bar to fight aspects of this war in our courtrooms, where it knew it would have a decent chance at victory. So complete is the Court’s disregard for the Constitution and even its own precedent now that anything is possible. And what was once considered inconceivable is now compelled by the Constitution, or so five justices have ruled. I fear for my country. I really do. And AP, among others, reports this story as a defeat for “the Bush administration.” Really? I see it as a defeat for the nation.

UPDATE: The 5-4 GITMO decision brings to the front, yet again, John McCain’s position on judges versus his own policies. McCain undoubtedly supports the 5-4 decision, yet the justices who voted against it, and argued strenuously against it, are of the kind McCain claims to want on the bench. We have seen the same issue arise respecting campaign finance. This is not to say that McCain won’t nominate originalists to the bench. But if he does, he will be nominating to the Court individuals who are better adherents to the Constitution than he is.

Meanwhile, the always predictable Bush hating New York Slimes editorializes today with the heading: Justice 5, Brutality 4!

*Ginsberg,Souter,Kennedy,Stevens & Breyer