Craig DeLuz

Writer, Actor, Public Speaker, Media Personality
Posts Tagged ‘War on Terror’

Obama changes mind on the surge: It ain’t so bad!

Let the flip-floping continue! Below is an article fromt he New York Daily News noting that the Obama Campaign unceremoniously removed all criticizm of the the surge from their website.

I don’t know that this represents a change of opinion. But more a change of tactics. You know… If you don’t have anything nice to say about the surge, don’t say anything at all. (Hat Tip to the CRP)

“Barack Obama Purges Web Site Critique Of Surge In Iraq”
New York Daily News

“Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop ‘surge’ in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a ‘problem’ that had barely reduced violence.”
— Daily News’ James Gordon Meek

By James Gordon Meek
July 14, 2008

Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.

“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.”

GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. “The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong,” said McCain, adding that Obama “refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding.”

Obama changes mind on the surge: It ain’t so bad!

Let the flip-floping continue! Below is an article fromt he New York Daily News noting that the Obama Campaign unceremoniously removed all criticizm of the the surge from their website.

I don’t know that this represents a change of opinion. But more a change of tactics. You know… If you don’t have anything nice to say about the surge, don’t say anything at all. (Hat Tip to the CRP)

“Barack Obama Purges Web Site Critique Of Surge In Iraq”
New York Daily News

“Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop ‘surge’ in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a ‘problem’ that had barely reduced violence.”
— Daily News’ James Gordon Meek

By James Gordon Meek
July 14, 2008

Barack Obama’s campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.

The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a “problem” that had barely reduced violence.

“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.

The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.

Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.

It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is “not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.”

GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. “The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong,” said McCain, adding that Obama “refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding.”

Obama fails history lesson

Presidential hopeful, Barak Obama continues to demonstrate his ignorance of history as he continues to defend his commitment to meeting, unconditionally with the leaders of country’s that are enemies of the United States.

In his victory speech following the North Carolina Primary, Obama declared, “I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.”

Well Real Clear Politics published a commentary by Jack Kelly pointing out that Barak’s statement demonstrates stupidity, not wisdom. Kelly writes:

I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

So apparently, Roosevelt and Truman did not agree with Barak’s belief in unconditional talks with enemy states. In fact, they held that the only condition that merited talks was that of “Unconditional Surrender.” Kelly goes on to debunk the Obama’s “wisdom” when it relates to the actions of President Kennedy:

Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.

Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.

“There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy’s measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions,” Mr. Abel wrote. “There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America’s power. He questioned only the president’s readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are ‘too liberal to fight.'”

That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: “Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs,” Mr. Reston wrote. “He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed.”

Ok…. I’m still waiting for the “Wisdom” to which Obama is referring? Like a school yard bully, Khrushcev saw Kennedy’s overtures as a lack of will to fight, which we all know, will provoke said bullies to be even more bold and aggressive. I wonder how much sooner the cold war could have been ended, had Kennedy not compromised our credibility as a military superpower ready to do whatever it took to protect our citizens.

There is a popular saying: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Well, through his own words, Barak Obama demonstrates that not only has he failed to learn vital lessons from history, he hasn’t even learned the facts of history.

__________________________________________

So are you saying that Kennedy should have engaged in a nuclear strike with Russia during the Cuban Missle Crisis? Whatever you think of Kennedy, the fact that he did NOT engage nuclear weapons at the time was one of the BEST decisions he could have made.

One example of when a President engages in Diplomacy: Jim Lea writes in Stripes.com:

“… Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected U.S. president in November 1952 and fulfilled a campaign promise to go to Korea and attempt to bring an end to the war. He arrived in December and made it clear that he, too, was looking for an armistice rather than a military victory. (NOTE: An amristice is a truce, NOT unconditional surrender).

He let it be known to Moscow, Peking and Pyongyang that if the talks were not reopened and did not proceed satisfactorily toward an armistice, U.N. forces would “move decisively without inhibition in our use of weapons and would no longer be responsible for confining hostilities to the Korean Peninsula.”

There was, however, no response from the communists to Eisenhower’s statement or to a proposal by Clark that the two sides exchange sick and wounded prisoners. Lt. Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor succeeded Van Fleet in February and continued to conduct skirmishes with the North Koreans and Chinese. A break in the Panmunjom deadlock came in March, some three weeks after Soviet leader Joseph Stalin died.

North Korean and Chinese delegates agreed to an exchange of sick and wounded prisoners. The armistice talks resumed in April, the exchange of sick and wounded prisoners took place shortly thereafter, and the POW issue was settled by mid-June.

The two sides agreed that each would be allowed to persuade any prisoners who refused repatriation to change their minds.

With the armistice almost a reality, battlefield action increased as Chinese and North Korean troops made a final attempt to grab more land. On July 13, communist forces drove eight miles into the central sector of the 8th Army line. Taylor counterattacked, but ended the final battle of the war July 20 because negotiators had nearly reached an accord.

The agreement was signed at 10 a.m. July 27, 1953, in a building hastily erected by the North for the ceremony.”

My point: That talking – even when you are a newly-elected president seeking to end a war going nowhere – can produce results.

Obama fails history lesson

Presidential hopeful, Barak Obama continues to demonstrate his ignorance of history as he continues to defend his commitment to meeting, unconditionally with the leaders of country’s that are enemies of the United States.

In his victory speech following the North Carolina Primary, Obama declared, “I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.”

Well Real Clear Politics published a commentary by Jack Kelly pointing out that Barak’s statement demonstrates stupidity, not wisdom. Kelly writes:

I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

So apparently, Roosevelt and Truman did not agree with Barak’s belief in unconditional talks with enemy states. In fact, they held that the only condition that merited talks was that of “Unconditional Surrender.” Kelly goes on to debunk the Obama’s “wisdom” when it relates to the actions of President Kennedy:

Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961.

Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit.

“There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy’s measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions,” Mr. Abel wrote. “There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America’s power. He questioned only the president’s readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are ‘too liberal to fight.'”

That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: “Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs,” Mr. Reston wrote. “He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed.”

Ok…. I’m still waiting for the “Wisdom” to which Obama is referring? Like a school yard bully, Khrushcev saw Kennedy’s overtures as a lack of will to fight, which we all know, will provoke said bullies to be even more bold and aggressive. I wonder how much sooner the cold war could have been ended, had Kennedy not compromised our credibility as a military superpower ready to do whatever it took to protect our citizens.

There is a popular saying: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Well, through his own words, Barak Obama demonstrates that not only has he failed to learn vital lessons from history, he hasn’t even learned the facts of history.

McCain to Obama “al Qaeda is already in Iraq”

Are the primaries over already? You would think so the way John McCain and Barak Obama are going after each other.

In a series of back and forth comments on the topic of al Qaeda in Iraq, the two presumptive presidential nominees had no shortage of witty barbs for one another. And while I think both earned high marks for delivery and rhetoric, Mr. Barak’s final statement fell short in the area of true substance and accuracy.

His statement that “there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq” is not entirely accurate.

A 2007 White House Fact sheet on Iraq stated the following about Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who founded Al Qaeda In Iraq and Pledged Allegiance To Osama Bin Laden: “In 2001, Zaraqawi left Afghanistan and eventually went to Iraq to set up operations with terrorist associates after Coalition forces destroyed his Afghan training camp.”

Now in his defense, the same fact sheet also states that it wasn’t until 2004 when “Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaeda, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and promised to ‘follow his orders in jihad.’” And that “al Qaeda in Iraq is an organization founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists…”

So maybe there was no official group known as “al Qaeda in Iraq” before the war. However, those who founded it were already running terrorist organizations in Iraq that were in existence well before the beginning of the war. They simply decided to become an al Qaeda franchise.

Sadam admitts pretending to have WMDs

This weekend 60 minutes aired an interview with FBI Agent, George Piro. He was the man responsible for conducting the interrogation of former Iraqi dictator, Sadaam Husein. In this piece, Piro discusses some very interesting confessions Sadaam revealed to him.

Read More…

Sadam admitts pretending to have WMDs

This weekend 60 minutes aired an interview with FBI Agent, George Piro. He was the man responsible for conducting the interrogation of former Iraqi dictator, Sadaam Husein. In this piece, Piro discusses some very interesting confessions Sadaam revealed to him.

CBS News reports:

For a man who drew America into two wars and countless military engagements, we never knew what Saddam Hussein was thinking. But you are going to hear more than has ever been revealed before.

After his capture, Saddam met every day with one man, an American he knew as “Mr. George.” George is FBI agent George Piro, who was the front man for a team of FBI and CIA analysts who were trying to answer some of the great mysteries of recent history. What happened to the weapons of mass destruction? Was Saddam in league with al Qaeda? Why did he choose war with the United States?

As correspondent Scott Pelley reports, Piro is the man who came to know Saddam better than anyone, as they sat face to face in a windowless room.

The following excerpts are taken directly from the interview transcript-

Sadaam on what happened to their WMDs

“He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the ’90s. And those that hadn’t been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq,” Piro says.

Sadaam on why he lied about possessing WMDS

“So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?” Pelley asks.

“It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq,” Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

“He believed that he couldn’t survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?” Pelley asks.

“Absolutely,” Piro says.

As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn’t he stop it then? And say, ‘Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.’ I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?” Pelley asks.

“He didn’t. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially,” Piro says.

Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. “He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage,” he says.

“Saddam didn’t believe that the United States would invade,” Pelley remarks.

“Not initially, no,” Piro says.

Sadaam on the use of WMDs against his own people

The Piro interviews with Saddam turned up other revelations about one of the most notorious war crimes of his regime: the use of chemical weapons on Kurdish civilians in 1988. Iraq gassed its own people in something called the Anfal campaign to counter Iranian incursions and Kurdish resistance to his rule.

Piro says Saddam told him he himself gave the orders to use chemical weapons against the Kurds in the North. When shown the graphic pictures of the aftermath, Piro says Saddam reacted by saying, “Necessary.”

Sadaam on the future his WMD Program

In fact, Piro says Saddam intended to produce weapons of mass destruction again, some day. “The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there,” Piro says.

“And that was his intention?” Pelley asks.

“Yes,” Piro says.

“What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?” Pelley asks.

He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program,” says Piro.

Chemical, biological, even nuclear,” Pelley asks.

Yes,” Piro says.

I have always found it to be an absurd accusation by the left that President Bush lied about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. I am willing to admit that there is a good chance that the President was wrong. But keep in mind that at the time Sadaam was being interrogated, he had not gone on trial yet. Thus, it would not have been in his best interest to admit to anyone that he actually had the WMDs.

And if the President was wrong, who could blame him since all the intelligence we and everyone else had at the time pointed to the same conclusion. And now we even have Sadaam clearly stating that he intentionally gave the impression that he possessed WMDs.

According to this 60 minutes piece, we have confirmed the following facts from Sadaam himself:

1. At one time he did possess weapons of mass destruction.
2. Even after the supposed destruction of the WMDs, he continued to maintain the impression that Iraq was still in possession of WMDs.
3. He personally approved the use of WMDs on his own people and saw their deaths as “necessary”.
4. He fully intended to reconstitute his WMD program and maintained the appropriate personnel to do so.

So are liberals going to change the slogan to “Sadaam lied and people died?”

On another note: I also found it interesting that Sadaam did not take the threat of an American Invasions very seriously; and that he based his miscalculation on the wimpy response of the Clinton administration in 1998.

__________________________________________

FACT: President Bush promised to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and crush Al Qaeda.

FACT: Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was known to be based in Afghanistan – Not Iraq.

FACT: At the time some in the administration (e.g. Cheney) were hyping ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda (2002-03), Colin Powell acknowledged there was no known, confirmed connection between Al Qaeda, Iraq and Saddam’s regime. Declassified documents back up Powell’s position.

FACT: Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters NOT to join forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle U.S. troops (translation – they were NOT in Iraq!!!)

FACT: Bush Administration insiders (e.g. Cheney, Rice and Powell) stated that Iraq was not a “threat”, and that the policy of containment should be considered a success.

I can go on and on with this… the bottom line: If we are going after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, and both are in Afghanistan, why in the world are we fighting (still) in Iraq? Saddam arguing why he was fronting the U.S. with his WMD claims is immaterial. AGAIN – WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ?????????

__________________________________________

Did I mention Osama Barak…Ooops!!!…. (A Kenedyian Slip!)… I mean Osama Bin Ladin? This post is about whether or not Sadam led the world to believe that he had WMD’s. The fact is that he did!

In the US, Democrats and Republicans alike thought he had them. (See Video Below)

And now we see that this impression was exactly what Sadam intended. To say that President Bush lied is not being intellectually honest and you know it.

Not that liberals care about being honest…. After all, according to liberals these Democrats (the ones in the video) lied and people died.

Hamas Mickey?

I don’t know why it surprises me that Hamas would use a Mickey Mouse look-a-like to promote their violent, anti-Semitic and anti-American dogma. I guess I always thought of Mickey as… I don’t know….. off limits to stuff like this. Obviously I was wrong.

This morning the Associated Press was reported the following:

Hamas militants have enlisted the iconic Mickey Mouse to broadcast their message of Islamic dominion and armed resistance to their most impressionable audience—little kids.

A giant black-and-white rodent—named “Farfour,” or “butterfly,” but unmistakably a Mickey rip-off—does his high-pitched preaching against the U.S. and Israel on a children’s show run each Friday on Al-Aqsa TV, a station run by Hamas. The militant group, sworn to Israel’s destruction, shares power in the Palestinian government.

“You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists,” Farfour squeaked on a recent episode of the show, which is titled, “Tomorrow’s Pioneers.”

“We will return the Islamic community to its former greatness, and liberate Jerusalem, God willing, liberate Iraq, God willing, and liberate all the countries of the Muslims invaded by the murderers.”

Children call in to the show, many singing Hamas anthems about fighting Israel.

Am I the only one who finds it interesting that Hamas, who hates the west, would resort to using a widely recognized media icon of the west to reach out to their own children?

Operation Completion

Craig serves as MC for Operation Completion rally supporting the troops

Craig and fellow Western Alliance Members, Andy Nevis and

Katelyn Sills