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

Category: Terror War

  • Clinton gets us a hand full of jack

    Remember a few weeks ago when the Obama Administration threw “New Europe” under the bus by conceding to Russian demands that we end our missile defense plan of Eastern Europe? Remember that we were told that we needed to do that to get the Russians’ support for sanctions against Iran? Well, how’s that looking today?

    Secretary of State Clinton spent four hours with her Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The Washington Times quotes Lavarov;

    During a press conference with the secretary, however, Mr. Lavrov said that sanctions are “very far” from being inevitable and repeated a position Russia has expressed for years.

    “At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process,” he said. “Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.”

    Actually, I agree sanctions wouldn’t work – but we were told that’s why we conceded to Russia on missile defense. So what are we getting for giving up our allies? Squat. how’s Putin’s ass taste, Hillary?

    In fact, the Washington Post wrings it’s hands over the vulnerability of the Administration to conservative critics at this point;

    Senior administration officials said that the differences were tactical rather than substantive. Both sides agreed that Iran would face sanctions if it failed to carry out its obligations, a State Department official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

    But failure to win a Russian commitment to a set of specific sanctions in advance could leave the administration vulnerable to Republican criticism that it gave the Kremlin what it wanted by overhauling missile defense plans in Europe but got nothing in return.

    Yeah, that should be their concern – conservatives. Never mind that we look like impotent tools in front of the whole world. You’d think that was bad enough, wouldn’t you? But, no it’s not. Fox News reports that Clinton gave the Russians access to our nukes.

    Russia and the United States have tentatively agreed to a weapons inspection program that would allow Russians to visit nuclear sites in America to count missiles and warheads.

    The plan, which Fox News has learned was agreed to in principle during negotiations, would constitute the most intrusive weapons inspection program the U.S. has ever accepted.

    Any mention of our inspections of Russian nukes?

    “We want to ensure that every question that the Russian military or Russian government asks is answered,” she said, calling missile defense “another area for deep cooperation between our countries.”

    But what about the Russians’ nukes, Madame Secretary?

    President Obama — who visited Russia in July — has vowed to “reset” U.S.-Russia relations. On Tuesday, Clinton apologized for missing that meeting because of a broken elbow.

    “But now both my elbow and our relationships are reset and we’re moving forward, which I greatly welcome,” she said.

    Um…Russian nuclear weapons inspections?

    Nuthin’.

  • German-flagged vessel busted with ammo bound for Syria

    Cuffy Meigs reported yesterday that US forces boarded a German-flagged ship bound from Iran to Syria with seven shipment containers of 7.62x39mm ammunition and the means to manufacture more. According to Cuffy, since Syria has it’s own means of manufacturing ammo, it was probably bound for Hezbollah.

    The contraband arms were off-loaded and secured in Malta, and the Hansa India is currently steaming off the coast of Lisbon, Portugal, presumably back to Germany.

    Don Surber writes;

    I would like to wait and see what transpired. Maybe Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government blew the whistle.

    All of this while Hillary Clinton is in Moscow trying to convice the Russians to help clamp down on Iran’s nuclear program. I suspect that Iran and Hezbollah is in the midst of creating another diversion from the nukes by provoking Israel to stage another invasion of Syria, since it was Gaza’s turn earlier this year.

    Israel Matzav writes;

    Earlier on Monday, I reported that Britain had decided to boycott Islamic Republic of Iran shipping lines. I guess now we know why.

    Ed Morrissey asks;

    What else do German ships transport into and out of Iran? What else have we not caught?

    Fat lot of good more sanctions to punish Iran will do.

  • Media notices ‘gator’s long tail

    When the President announced he was sending 22,000 troops to Afghanistan last Spring, I guess the media didn’t realize that it would entail sending support troops behind the trigger-pullers judging by the headlines this morning. The Washington Post‘s Ann Scott Tyson incredulously writes “Support Troops Swelling U.S. Force in Afghanistan; Additional Deployments Not Announced and Rarely Noted”

    President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized — and the Pentagon is deploying — at least 13,000 troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.

    The additional troops are primarily support forces, including engineers, medical personnel, intelligence experts and military police. Their deployment has received little mention by officials at the Pentagon and the White House, who have spoken more publicly about the combat troops who have been sent to Afghanistan.

    Who would have thought an increased number of combat forces would need more support? Certainly not the Washington Post, or even Fox News, for that matter;

    “Obama authorized the whole thing. The only thing you saw announced in a press release was the 21,000,” an unnamed defense official familiar with the process told the paper.

    The report comes as Obama weighs a request from the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, for more combat, training and support troops, with several options including one for 40,000 more forces.

    The number we used to talk about was 7 support troops for every infantryman. It’s probably more than that now given the amount of technology the troops carry around with them these days. Somehow the media, which claims to be the expert on everything on this planet, is just noticing that the pointy end of the alligator has a long tail to propel those teeth.

    Defense officials, however, acknowledge that the request for 21,000 troops has led to the authorization of more forces.

    “The 21,000 are only combat forces, and when the combat forces go in, there are a certain amount of additional forces that are required,” said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who signs the deployment orders, had military officials identify last spring the entire scope of the increase and agreed that he would consult with Obama again if the Pentagon sought to go above that, Whitman said.

    I suppose the media envisioned 21,000 trigger-pullers carrying everything they need for a year’s deployment on their backs.

  • The battle for COP Keating

    Michelle Malkin has links to the profiles of the eight fallen of the battle last weekend in Afghanistan.

    Many were fathers. All were patriots. They were stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado. They leave behind grieving wives, girlfriends, young children, family, and friends. Remember their names. Remember their heroism:

    ABC News reports that the guys flying close air support for the battle were amazed at the situation when they arrived on station;

    “When we first showed up and put our sensors on Keating, it was just kind of shock,” said Bardwell, 35, of Liman, Wyo., who piloted one of a swarm of Apaches that rushed the base’s defense. “All the amount of flames and the smoke and to see that amount of personnel running outside of their wire. It was really kind of shock.”

    Lewallen added, “I’ve been on three deployments and I’ve never seen that large of a force attacking one static position.”

    When he first arrived on the scene Saturday, Lewallen said he could see about 30 fighters just along the camp’s perimeter.

    The number of attackers has been estimated from 100 to 200. Lewallen said he thought as many as 350 were involved in the assault.

    Everyday, I am more in awe than the day before of the quality of young men and women who volunteer to put themselves in harm’s way for us. If this is what they do when they’re “disillusioned” imagine what they’ll accomplish when the Obama Administration gets off their collective ass and starts supporting them.

  • Vote Vets: Sure let’s bring back the Taliban

    Yeah, dicksmith is a rocket surgeon. The Times Online reports that President Obama is contemplating involving the Taliban in rebuilding Afghanistan.

    Mr Obama appears to have been swayed in recent days by arguments from some advisers, led by Vice-President Joe Biden, that the Taleban do not pose a direct threat to the US and that there should be greater focus on tackling al-Qaeda inside Pakistan.

    And, surprise, dicksmith thinks it’s brilliant;

    This makes sense. Often in America, the Taliban is conflated with al Quaeda as if they are the same organization. They aren’t. The Taliban were a group of fundamentalist Islamic scholars who took power in the vacuum that ensured following the withdrawal of the Soviets. Needing money to fund their regime, the Taliban turned to a Saudi-born oil heir named Osama bin Laden and agreed to allow his organization to operate training camps within their borders in exchange for financing.

    See? It’s not their fault that they became entangled with terrorists. Dicksmith fails to mention that these “fundamentalist Islamic scholars” are the guys who now throw acid in the faces of young girls for the unforgivable crime of going to school.

    And, oh, has anybody bothered to mention that the Taliban, who the US Left credits for eradicating poppy production and the resulting drug trade in Afghanistan are currently involved in the drug trade?

    But dicksmith isn’t done apologizing for the Taliban;

    Yes, the Taliban were complicit in attacks on American, but they did not perpetrate them.

    For six years we got to hear the Left complain that Iraq wasn’t complicit in world-wide terrorism. Now we get to hear them eliminate yet another group of enemies with their pathetic, intellectually shallow excuses. Besides, the Taliban says that they’re not a threat to us. they’ve never lied before, right?

    What’s next? Are they going to tell us that Osama bin Laden didn’t know about the 9-11 attacks? How could he? He was all the way in Afghanistan.

    The fact that welcoming the Taliban into the community of Afghans is a Biden plan should have warned everybody off – but not dicksmith, bless his tiny black heart.

  • French navy fights off pirates

    Sporkmaster reminded me of this story the other day in which the French Navy actually closed with and captured some Somali pirates;

    The crew of La Somme, a 160-metre (525-foot) command vessel and fuel tanker, easily saw off the brazen night-time assault by lightly armed fighters on two lightweight skiffs and captured five pirates, a spokesman said.

    “The pirates, who because of the darkness took the French ship for a commercial vessel, were on board two vessels and opened fire with Kalashnikovs,” Admiral Christophe Prazuck said in Paris.

    I’m glad to see the French finally overcoming their notorious image of being “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” (as described by famous military historian, Homer Simpson) and I’ll do anything I can to promote this new image – as long as they keep it up.

  • The political football in Afghanistan

    While real soldiers are fighting a real war in Afghanistan, politicians toss their fates around like a football. Leaving a meeting with the President at the White House on the subject, members of Congress made statements which don’t give me much confidence in their intentions. According to the Stars and Stripes, Harry Reid said that he “left the meeting believing that all lawmakers – regardless of party affiliation – will support Obama’s ultimate decision.” That kind of wording means that if some politicians don’t support the President’s decision, they’ll be ostracized.

    John Kerry, of course, sees the war as a political opportunity instead of the lives of troops;

    Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-Mass, said while the president deliberates his options lawmakers should be doing a “self-examination” of their own “to see how much they’re willing to put on the table, see what they’re willing to commit in terms of money and troops.” For his part, Kerry indicated he’d be reluctant to send more troops overseas without a clearer set of goals.

    In other words, disregard the future of the troops, think more about the political implications of your decisions. He’d be reluctant because he gets his votes in Back-assachusetts.

    John McCain isn’t inspiring me with confidence either;

    Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he sees parallels between the “surge” in troops for Iraq and the need for more Afghanistan forces now, adding he is confident that Obama understands the importance of the issue.

    “I believe the president will make the right decision,” McCain said.

    Why do you believe that, Senator? Because he’s made so many brilliant decisions so far?

    White House and Congressional officials did not offer any timeline for when a final announcement on strategy will be made, but said for now they’re willing to wait.

    How long? Do they realize that there are folks engaged in that theater right now? This isn’t a discussion about whether or not to apply military power – the military is currently engaged. It must be nice to sit back in the comfort of the Oval Office and contemplate some future act without BEING SHOT AT.

    The only realistic voice is, of course, House Majority Leader John Boehner;

    “He wants ample time to make a decision, and I support that,” Boehner said. “But we need to remember that every day that goes by, our troops that are there are in greater danger. We need to get this right.”

  • Like babes in the woods

    I’m pretty sure the Obama Administration knew about the problems with Iran before they took the reins nearly ten months ago. So what’s taking them so long to develop a policy and design those sanctions they were so adamant about last year during the campaign? From the Washington Times;

    “Even as the administration focuses on diplomacy, we have also been working with our colleagues across the U.S. government to develop a strategy for imposing substantial costs on the government of Iran if the president determines that is what is needed to affect Iranian policies,” said Stuart Levey, undersecretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, in prepared testimony on Capitol Hill.

    In other words, when they made the decision to impose sanctions, someone didn’t just walk over to the file cabinet a pull a file that they’d been working over the last year. In my head, the folder would have said “Plan B” on the jacket. I guess they really did plan on ignoring our foreign policy for the first year.

    So, they’re moving with all deliberate speed to impose sanctions, right? Hardly;

    Nonetheless, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said late Monday that Tehran’s concessions in Geneva had put sanctions on the back burner for the moment.

    “It buys time,” she said in an interview with CNN. “It buys time for us to consider carefully their response, the sincerity of their actions, and, you know, we’re moving simultaneously on the dual track.”

    “Buys time” for who? Buys time for the Iranians to build their nuclear weapon and avoid sanctions.

    It’s almost as if the Obama Administration is hoping that Israel will strike Iran. Then they can breathe a sigh of relief that they didn’t have to commit to anything concrete – and then spend the next ten years condemning Israel for acting unilaterally.