This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Liberals suck

  • The Hypocrisy of Rethink Afghanistan in regards to the Officer Corp.

    In the past two years Rethink Afghanistan has been actively seeming to go after any General that seeks to combat the Taliban and al qaeda in Afghanistan. They have called for the firing of General McChrystal for complaining about not getting the support that was requested.

    McChrystal should have been fired for any number of reasons: his disrespect for the civilian leadership of the U.S., his working of the media to limit President Obama’s political space to adopt strategies in Afghanistan that didn’t include major troop surges, for his role in the Pat Tillman cover-up, etc.

    Remember that part because they sure do not remember it. Enter a nameless Colonel that does the exact same thing, except that the Officer sent in a letter directly to the Media. But surely that such a act would have the same reaction from Rethink Afghanistan by such comments. Right?

    TIME Magazine’s Battleland blog features an email from an active duty colonel ripping the war wonks at D.C. insider think tanks for pushing more militarism as the answer in Afghanistan. For those that aren’t familiar: there’s a whole cottage industry of think tanks and non-profits pushing for more war, often funded by those with deep ties to the war industry.

    Yea I am sure that they are more then willing keep this mystery Officer nameless considering how the last Officer that was used to attempt to get another General fired turned out to be a bust. But that has not stopped them from going after General Petraeus.

    The once-seemingly untouchable General David Petraeus is seeing his brainchild roundly rejected in Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency, the doctrine pushed by Petraeus and his protege, General Stanley McChrystal, as the “new” strategy for Afghanistan, has suddenly become the target of fierce criticism within the administration and without. And it’s about time, too: thanks to this failed strategy, U.S. taxpayers are being charged $2 billion a week for a war that’s not making us safer.

    Yea and we are the ones that are being accused of yellow journalism.

  • Wasserman-Schultz: Obama turned the economy around

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

    In the event that you missed Meet the Press yesterday, you’re probably still laboring under the misconception that the US economy is in the tank. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz claims otherwise;

    REP. SCHULTZ: Because we were able to, under President Obama’s leadership, turn this economy around. When President Obama took office…

    MR. GREGORY: Whoa, whoa, let me just stop you there. Clearly, the economy has not been turned around. I mean, you just saw those numbers.

    REP. SCHULTZ: It, it certainly–it has…

    MR. GREGORY: Americans don’t believe that’s the case.

    REP. SCHULTZ: Well, we, we were–when President Obama took office, the month before he was inaugurated, the economy was bleeding 750,000 jobs a month, David, and we were not headed in the right direction. Now, I know we–and President Obama has said we have a long way to go. We’d like the pace of recovery to, to, to be picked up. But we have definitely begun to turn the economy around. You, you fast-forward two and a half years later now, and the economy has created 2.1 million private sector jobs, a million of those jobs just in the last six months. We’ve had 15 straight months of job growth.

    Wasserman-Schultz should consult the Bureau of Labor Statistics;

    Nonfarm payroll employment changed little (+54,000) in May, and the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 9.1 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains continued in professional and business services, health care, and mining. Employment levels in other major private-sector industries were little changed, and local government employment continued to decline.

    Gee, I guess that, unlike on the campaign trail, reality doesn’t always match the rhetoric.

  • Weepy Wiener; I lied

    With crocodile tears, Anthony Wiener admitted today that he’s been lying to the entire country for more than a week about sending pictures of “Little Anthony” through his Twitter account – but only after more pictures were uncovered today. He claims that he’s accepting responsibility for his actions, but refuses to resign as his fellow New Yorker Christopher Lee did. Of course the difference between Wiener and Lee is that Lee was a Republican.

    I suppose that Wiener doesn’t realize that every time anyone looks at him, all they’ll see is Little Anthony bulging through his underwear.

    In honesty, though, that’s all I saw when I looked at him before this anyway – a little dickhead.

    If New Yorkers return him to office next year, they’re clearly not interested in being well-represented in Congress. Is he the best person for the job in his district? Is there no one in his district with better judgement than Wiener? The bald-faced lies aside, how can his judgement not be called into question at this point?

    Whether he was unfaithful to his new bride or not, just engaging in this kind of behavior shows weak moral failings. How do people know that he’s not lying with every word? How can we believe he’s contrite about this poor behavior? He’s obviously sorry that he’s been caught – but not so sorry that he couldn’t tell the truth last week when his primary face wasn’t in the picture.

    But there’s an obvious double standard at work here between Wiener and Lee. If he was truly contrite, Wiener would leave public life so we bloggers wouldn’t have to write new punchlines for every time his weaselly face pops up in the news.

    Glen Beck says that Wiener’s judgement should be questioned just because he thinks he’s hot enough that women want naked pictures of him.

  • Zombie: SEIU goes full commie

    Our buddy, Zombie sends us the latest photo essay from Southern California in “SEIU drops mask, goes full commie” Zombie’s coverage of their May Day celebration. All of the pictures were taken by our buddy Ringo who has more coverage at his place;

    A sample;

  • Abandoning Afghanistan

    In the Huffington Post today, Amanda Terkel announces “Mission Accomplished: Is It Finally Time To Leave Afghanistan?” and makes the case that the war is over there and it’s time to leave. She quotes some lawmakers like Barney Franks and Jerry “The Waddler” Nadler;

    “The single biggest reason we went into Afghanistan was to get Osama bin Laden,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) at a Center for American Progress event Monday morning.

    “If Osama bin Laden was still alive, that would have given some people an argument, ‘Oh you can’t get out of Afghanistan for reputational reasons.’ … Having killed Osama bin Laden deprives people who wanted to stay in Afghanistan for other reasons of the argument that we would be leaving in defeat,” he added.

    Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) told The Huffington Post in an interview on Monday that once the euphoria of the U.S. success in Pakistan wears off, the country needs to start reconsidering its Afghanistan policy.

    “We accomplished what we had to do in Afghanistan a long time ago,” Nadler said. “We ought to stop wasting our troops and our money and our lives and get out. And this just shows that should al Qaeda establish a base there, we can go in and take it out as we just did in Pakistan. It just shows how superfluous everything we’re doing in Afghanistan is. Pakistan is more dangerous, and look what we did.”

    So, to listen to those two, we went to Afghanistan merely to act on our revenge instincts. I’d like to think America is better than that. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, we left that country unable to attack us since – our initial motives maybe have been revenge, but the strategy was to wage total war and leave them impotent.

    If we leave Afghanistan right now, history will record that we only wanted revenge for bin Laden’s attack on 9-11, when that wasn’t even our initial reaction. We left Afghanistan to it’s own devices in 1988 when the Soviets withdrew and it became a terror haven and a huge terrorist training camp. If we don’t build the military infrastructure to prevent that from happening again, what have the last ten years been about if not purely revenge for 9-11?

    The Taliban have launched their Spring offensive already – they certainly think they’re at war while our politicians obviously think the war is over. Think the Taliban will go easy on our troops because the politicians have lost the will to see this through to a successful conclusion?

    Harry Reid doesn’t even know where the troops are anymore;

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was also asked on Monday what bin Laden’s killing meant for the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. He initially slipped and said the President had committed to beginning withdrawal of troops “from Pakistan” but quickly corrected himself to indicate the correct country that the U.S. is occupying, despite the centrality of Pakistan to the effort.

    John Conyers declared the war over;

    With the death of Osama Bin Laden, the Long War that began on 9/11 is finally over. It’s time to bring our troops home, refocus our resources, reward the resiliency of the American people, and rededicate ourselves to rebuilding our nation.

    The Democrats have obviously lost the will to continue, though the troops haven’t. If we don’t finish the job in Afghan, we’ll be back again, but not before we pay another terrible cost.

  • The Greatest Save in Baseball

    StrikeFO reminds us that yesterday was the 35th anniversary of Rick Monday’s great save.

    “I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t have done the same thing.”

  • Democrats recruit Gen Sanchez to run for the Senate

    Ben and Ponsdorf send us a link to Hot Air (see how I linked that, Hot Air?) in which Ed Morrissey reminds us of how the Democrats were upset that the chain-of-command of the pervs who staffed Abu Gharaib were not held responsible for the naked pyramids and junk-pointing antics of their subordinates.

    Now it seems that the very Democrats who made such a stink, have recruited their main target, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, to run for the seat of retiring Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson next year;

    Former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes confirmed that Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the head of the Democratic Senate campaign committee, was referring to Sanchez Thursday when she said that Democrats were very close to announcing a candidate in Texas.

    From Red State;

    When former President George Bush tapped then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to fill the nation’s top law enforcement post, Murray joined Senator Maria Cantwell in opposing the nomination over his green-lighting of Sanchez’s interrogation techniques.

    In a 2004 statement, Senator Patrick Leahy accused Sanchez of authorizing “the use of techniques that were contrary to both U.S. military manuals but also international law.” “Given this incredible overstepping of bounds, I find it incredible that the reports generated thus far have not recommended punishment of any kind for high-level officials,” he added.

    Dicksmith at VoteVets is fond of referring to Allen West as a “war criminal”, so I wonder what cute little reference he’ll have for the reconstituted and now-Democrat-endorsed Sanchez.

  • Before He Was “The Solution” He Was “Part of the Problem”

    House Republicans today voted overwhelmingly in favor Paul Ryan’s deficit reduction plan. Ever since he released it, many in the conservative punditry world have been heaping praise on the Congressmen, calling him things like “bold” and “courageous”. Additionally, President Obama’s direct attack on his plan likewise bolstered his credibility among many fiscal conservatives and even libertarian groups like the CATO Institute. Indeed, it appears that Paul Ryan is becoming the new face of fiscal conservatism for many.

    However, even a cursory look at Ryan’s twelve-year record in the House reveals that he has been anything but a fiscal hawk. It wasn’t just one bad vote here and there either. Time after time, Ryan voted for legislation that expanded the size of the federal government and increased our debt and deficit. In 2001, he voted for No Child Left Behind and the accompanying increase in federal education spending. In 2003, he voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, expanding the entitlement which he now seeks to rein in. In 2005, during the debate over privatizing Social Security, Paul Ryan and John Sununu proposed legislation which would guarantee that no future Social Security recipient would receive lower benefits than which the current system offered. While some argued that this would actually save money over the long run by changing the rate of growth, in reality it would make it more difficult to reform Social Security by guaranteeing an unsustainable level of benefits.  In 2008, he voted for TARP and then later for the auto-company bailouts. Most recently, he voted for caps on CEO compensation. For someone like Ryan who is a self-professed Ayn Rand fan, some of these things seem like they are straight out of Atlas Shrugged. Now, I am not naive enough to think that there are droves of Republican congressmen with perfect voting records. But for someone who is supposed to be the new face of fiscal conservatism, Paul Ryan’s voting record demonstrates that he has been anything but a fiscal conservative, especially when it comes to entitlements.

    Despite my criticisms of Ryan, I like many parts of his plan, especially the voucher system for Medicare and the block grants for Medicaid. But it appears that Paul Ryan saw the writing on the wall when it came to which way the Republican Party was moving, especially with the rise of the Tea Party. That is the motivation for his “Path to Prosperity”- not some long-held beliefs in the ideals of fiscal prudence or limited government.