It starts back a few days ago when Bill O’Reilly was on The View, a show where women talk inanely about issues. [no, I'm not saying every woman in the world is on this show] The group was thoughtfully discussing why Obama is having so much trouble with the American people.

O’Reilly was making the point that there exists between Obama and the average Americal a huge proverbial chasm separating how they see the world. His example of this disconnect was the mosque controversy in NY. Obama approached the issue as though it were one of freedom of religion – while 70% of Americans see plainly that building a mosque so close to the 9-11 sight is inappropriate because [and here it comes] Muslims killed us on 9-11. This statement caused Whoopy Goldberg and Joy Behar to walk off the set (then walk right back on).

I’ve said before I don’t have a problem with “The Ground Zero Mosque”. And personally, I don’t like how Bill described his idea. I don’t think it actually offended any Muslims, but saying that sort of thing gives bitchy Liberals more little sticks to swing and unfairly further the crazy-O’Reilly-narrative with their Teabagger generalizing double-standard. He could have used better words, and the words he used distracted all the stupid people – the ones who need to listen – from the very true point he was making.

The fact is: Muslims did kill us on 9-11. There was a network of guys who pulled off an attack on our country and killed over 3000 people, and those killers did this based on ideas and motivations found in their sect of Islam. Also, one of the biggest threats to peace in the world right now is radical Islam. People know this. This is what people think. Bill said it too simply. He assumes American’s have good sense and don’t need crayons. He’s right. What other society would have had zero backlash against Muslims after 9-11?

The average American starkly sees why constructing a Mosque so close to the site of mass-murder by Muslims is offensive. These Americans aren’t interested in limiting the freedom of anyone’s religion, or keeping Liberal support for a political agenda. They just see this as common sense, best to avoid, find another spot, respect the victims’ suffering. The President has a different way of looking at the issue – apparently. That’s the point Bill was making before he stepped in it.

So since then Bill has been hashing over this whole big to-do, complaining about political correctness running a muck, how it’s wearing on the American people’s constitution for politeness. He is right. It is difficult to have this much needed conversation because everyone is expected to pretend that they don’t have any less-than-enlightened inclinations about Muslims – it’s just those other guys we have to reeducate.

So a couple days ago Bill is having a Factor debate, which includes a contributor representing either side. Juan Williams is representing the that-was-a-stupid-thing-to-say-Bill side, and someone else was representing the Muslim-problem side. Besides working as a contributor on Fox News, Juan did the same thing for NPR, until 36 hours after this debate. Here it is:http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/4381309/factor-debate-over-danger-from-muslim-world/?playlist_id=86923

Now, Juan is a really likable guy. He’s friendly and honest. He’s one of those guys who you can never count on which side of the issue he’ll fall – but you can count on whatever he says, it will be sincere and thought provoking. He’s not toeing anyone’s line, in other words, and makes great points and always adds to the conversation. He’s my favorite kind of contributor. He makes me think and question my ideas.

Right off Juan concedes that Bill is right about one thing: Political correctness is run-a-muck. He also added that this is a bad thing because an over-adherence to political correctness makes needed conversation impossible because it forces people to ignore reality. He then went on to describe an example of the problem, that he himself feels uneasy when he sees people dressed in Muslim garb boarding his plane. He wasn’t advocating such feelings, he was making a factual statement, highlighting a problem he himself is part of, and went on to argue against Bill’s use of words, because they could further this problem.

So 36 hours later, after receiving pressure from CAIR (a Muslim civil rights group), NPR abruptly cans Juan over the phone, an employee of 10 years. The fool president of NPR, Vivian Schiller, claimed the reason for the firing was that Juan, as an NPR contributor/corespondent, isn’t supposed express opinion.

And this is where the fun begins. I swear, it’s like NPR forgot my birthday, just remembered, and felt guilty and got me something REALLY good.

1. Juan wasn’t expressing opinion. He was stating a fact, a helpful fact in countering Bill’s MuslimsKilledUs argument, and a necessary fact in the Muslim-American discussion.

2. There are numerous other correspondents and contributors for NPR on record making all kinds of offensive opinions at all kinds of venues. None have been fired.

3. Juan was holding up the pro-Muslim side of the Factor debate. So it’s obvious that those ninnies on NPR and the jerks at CAIR ignored the context of the statement, or didn’t even bother to read the whole transcript, and imprudently fired a very respected journalist in order to further petty political ends. They’ve been looking for a reason to cut this Fox guy out. Juan Williams, a black man on FOX, a FOX/NPR contributor, harms the Faux News narrative they try to spin.

Vivian Schiller then goes on TV and says that Juan’s opinions should be shared with his psychiatrist and publicist, not as an NPR contributor. Juan was also the ONLY black person on NPR – lol.

Now EVERYONE is pissed – across the spectrum. ALL the ladies on the View think NPR made a mistake, those morning idiots on MSNBC say NPR should hire him back, Bob Beckel [liberal political annalist] is forgoing his yearly donation to NPR in honor of Juan Williams, and the Fox people are PISSED their buddy Juan got screwed and are having a hard time keeping it professional [I love Megan Kelly]. The only non-anti-NPR report I read was a Times piece trying to present the controversy as a FOX-opinion-journalism vs NPR-fact-journalism debate… please… The Times and I stand in line together for food stamps…

Now it’s apparent that NPR REALLY stepped in the warm sticky shit. People are advertising their funding sources. A movement has started efforts to remove NPR’s Federal funding. It’s fund raising week – lol. And this whole thing has proven that NPR is a Liberal organization and has totally undermined their credibility.

Now I understand many don’t feel NPR is unfairly Liberal. That was my sentiment as well. I was kidding myself of course, just like you, but I can’t stay convinced any longer, not with this idiot Schiller at the helm, not with George Soros giving them 1.8 million dollars, not with this blatant double-standard, not with this obviously politically motivated knee-jerk vilification of a good man. And seriously – this was just a plain stupid move. It’s blown any credibility I personally had in the organization’s editorial choices – the opposite of the stated intention.

There’s more to come I’m sure. Schiller is going to get canned I bet. She may have ruined NPR. They might have to stoop to capitalism, or worse yet, STOP PLAYING PRAIRIE FUCKING HOME FUCKING COMPANION, or tone down their minimum three shows a day focus on something about homosexuals.

Happy Birthday to me.
NPR’s up a tree.
ACORN their funding dear congress.
He he he he he he.        

Noisy Dove, where is the logic in refusing troops to secure the border when the risk to citizens in the homeland is so great? Why does the White House keep waiting? On one of the JFK tapes, then-president Kennedy discusses with an aide a proposal sent to him by the state of Texas. “They only got us how many votes?” he asks. “Yeah, I don’t see why we’d do anything for them.” Is this a similar spat?  Related article and video:  Fox News story: Uptick in Violence Forces Closing of Parkland Along Mexico Border to Americans

This is no spat. This is ideology. What else, besides ideology, could cause anyone to ignore clear essential logic? And I’m not taking a headline view of the border problem. Indeed, no one wants to ‘militarize’ the border with a good ally.

But here are the facts: The purpose of the National Guard is to – well – guard the blessed nation!!! And the border – it’s already militarized – with heavily armed drug cartel soldiers freely holding United States soil. These are the same guys breaking the Mexican government.

We only have a couple choices here. One – we can accept the costs of freedom and stoically endure a couple small terror attacks per year, a major one every ten, close off the sections of America that any neighboring militant factions would like to take, and hope Pelosi’s rehab-instead-of-prevention anti-drug policy works as well on our plane of reality as it does on hers. That’s what we’re trying now.

Or two – we can secure the border tight enough so that we at least know who is entering the country, especially the border with a country that’s having an internal war, and across which all manner of contraband and persons freely flows.

Only ideology can complicate this kind of thing. Serious Leftists don’t even believe in borders. Workers of the world unite – isn’t a figure of speech. They mean it. The National Socialist Party explains explicitly that they don’t believe in national borders. Obama’s not all the way over there – I don’t think – but that the way he points.

The Leftists in the US are dead set against enforcing immigration law or securing the border because they don’t agree with keeping people out. Indeed – this seems to seriously contradict the economic feasibility of all the entitlements the Left has planned for America – but again – ideology trumps logic.

Dear Noisy Dove,

The recently passed illegal immigration law in Arizona is apparently supported by 70% of the state’s voters, yet President Obama in a public ceremony called the bill, and so the people, misguided. He spoke generally of a different kind of reform needed. What sort would that be? …other than writing out a US birth certificate for anyone who wants one.

Obama is part of a group that doesn’t like that illegal immigration is illegal. (this group also likes to scare Latinos and other minorities away from the Republican vote) Instead of trying to make wander-in immigration legal, Obama’s group over the years has made enforcing immigration laws exceedingly difficult – that’s why illegal immigration is so popular among immigrants.

Arizona’s new law simply makes illegal immigration illegal under Arizona law, and requires officers to check citizenship status if there is probable cause to believe a suspect is an illegal immigrant. So essentially this law is undoing Progressive efforts to make a law they don’t agree with unenforceable. Obama doesn’t like that so he’s propped up one of his Straw Men again.

Obama can’t argue the logic of the law. AZ has half a million illegal immigrants and the number is growing while Mexican drug violence is seeping over the border. Schools are crowded and hurting for funds while parents are unemployed or under employed watching debt and taxes rise and incomes fall. And the Federal government refuses to secure the border. What does he expect a border State to do?

Obama’s Straw Man in this case is the usual Liberal argument against most anything they can’t counter logically: Racial. He calls it irresponsible and misguided – something that will: “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

What I call irresponsible is an insecure border that leaks thousands of illegal immigrants per day. What’s misguided is hampering law enforcement because you disagree with a law. One notion of fairness that many Americans cherish – especially legal immigrants – is the notion that anyone can become an American if they’re willing to go through the process. (not many countries allow this). And one thing that undermines trust between police and their communities is overburdening the police with hundreds of unidentifiable people entering those communities on a daily basis and then limiting how police can go about enforcing laws that are clearly and blatantly being broken.

Fundamentally, I think it’s lofty, arrogant, and un-American for the Federal government to tell a border state how it should or shouldn’t enforce immigration laws, within reason. And within reason, there is no smaller thing one can do to enforce immigration law than to require a police officer to check citizenship status when that officer has serious reason to question citizenship.

Obama also argues that this law is an example of why the Fed needs to pass immigration reform – to prevent more state laws from appearing that make a Federal law also a State law and require State enforcement. This would be a sound argument – although contradictory – if he were planning anything more than a soft political give-away.

What needs to happen first is our borders need to be secured. Right now this will require the National Guard, and is an optimal job for them. I would have disagreed with this a few years ago. Militarizing the border between us and one of our closest allies is bad for relations, and just looks jackassish. But things are getting serious. Ranchers have trash laden paths through their property and some are taking border security into their own hands. Mexico is fighting what is essentially an insurgency, which is coming over our weak border. And of course, we have unidentifiable people and illegal drugs poring through.

Long term, a serious barrier needs to be constructed. The border fence idea was good, but the contractors screwed it up. Regardless, a triple barrier with a road running down it would be ideal, along with ever improving surveillance equipment. It doesn’t matter how well you’re catching illegals if they’re pouring back in just as fast.

Next would be dealing with the current illegal immigrants. Now, I understand Amnesty is a bad word. But seriously, a society like ours, in most cases, is going to offer some type of stream-lined path to established illegal immigrants, it just is, that’s just how we are. The key to amnesty not breaking our society down is to observe step 1: Secure the borders.

Once the border is secure, and the current illegals are given amnesty or shipped off, we can then look at current immigration law. According to many farmers – for example – migrant workers are essential to their business. These workers are often undocumented and the jobs they do won’t be had by citizens. So certainly, a migrant worker program could be helpful.

The path to citizenship could also be examined, because bottom line, when people are literally risking life and limb to get here with the purpose of building a better and honest life, the legal path should be at least competitive with the shark-infested and 50-mile-desert-walk options.

As for the Arizona law’s probable affect, I agree with Squab Dove:

I say let’s see the arizona law in practice and see if the proof is in the pudding.  Maybe this new law will be really effective.  Maybe totally useless.  who knows.  AT LEAST Arizona is bucking up and doing something.  They are taking charge, as they should be.  Its good not to rely on the fed too much.  I think we need the states taking matters into their own hands more.  This is different though to some degree because it is the national border and hence a matter of national security.  So the fed should be asking Arizona what they need and how the fed can support their efforts to secure the border, not calling them misguided and offering shit on a stick as an alternate solution, or worse, amnesty…

Instead of vilifying AZ and talking about irresponsibility and boycotts for one’s own personal political gain, one should embrace such ideas as part of the 50 laboratories of democracy, freedom, and prosperity we have here – one of our greatest and least utilized strengths. And after implementation, let’s be honest about the results. *cynical laugh*

Something has to be done, and what has to be done isn’t going to be soft or pretty and will require more than creating new bureaucracy and shoveling more money – which is all this Leftist Congress will do.

And listen – Republicans – take it easy on this one. Don’t go getting all blustered over amnesty. Who cares, seriously. The Latino voting block is a perfect fit under the Republican tenants. Don’t let the Liberals paint you as anti-Latino bigots. They’re already picking recent immigrants off with all these lofty entitlement promises. In other words, if you need political points in your district, and you have Latinos, don’t hammer on amnesty. The key is border security and only hippies and modern Socialists will argue with that.

This is a good one. Pelosi is trying to sell the health reform bill as something helpful to the economy. lol She’s like that sales person who will swear to the patron dying on the sales floor that this juicer will fix the problem. lol Or the idiot on the radio talking about how calcium supplements will prevent cancer – but you have to take his special coral calcium, you can’t just take Tums. Oh what? You’re not worried about Cancer? Everyone in your family dies of heart disease? Well – it just so happens that my coral calcium will prevent heart disease – yes – it’s a heart-health supplement actually.

We all know, and it has been said over and over again, that our economy needs something new, a jolt.  And I believe that this legislation will unleash tremendous entrepreneurial power into our economy. — Pelosi

This reminds me of a skit by that Canadian comedy group – The Kids in the Hall:

The car won’t start, so the ‘husband’ gets out and kicks the tire. He looks to the ‘wife’, now in the driver’s seat. “Try it now.” Nothing. He opens the hood, “Try it now.” Nothing. He closes the hood. “Try it now.” Nothing.

He ends up changing the tire, and I forget what else, everything but fix the damn engine, but it’s about the same as Pelosi’s logic when it comes to economics. Nothing about passing a bill that forces companies to provide health insurance if they have more than 50 employees will stimulate entrepreneurship.

*sigh*

It’s just ridiculous. This is something around a 10% increase (probably more) in employee costs. That might not seem like much to a foolish congresswoman who’s never had to earn a living, but when you realize that a successful business is usually functioning on a profit margin of single percentage points, and that most entrepreneurial ventures fail, and that the ones that do succeed do so only after several years of losing money – you’ll understand how difficult these fancy new taxes will make it to do the things our economy needs us to do: innovate, risk, and invest.

The only entrepreneurial powers this will unleash are new solutions to keep your staff under 50 members.

Scott Brown elected Massachusetts State Senator

Do you think a woman who had posed nude could ever achieve national political office?

Disaster in Haiti

The only hope long term for Haiti is a deadly disease that only affects jerks. That’s the only hope for a lot of developing nations criminally ruled by jerks. The CIA got close with AIDS, but they didn’t realize back then that butt-sex and being a jerk were not mutually inclusive. Ah well, dreams for the next conservative administration.

‘We are the world’ Haiti relief recording session begins

These people need to be stopped. Send your money to Red Cross.

State of the Union address

I don’t know why people take Obama’s speeches to seriously. I mean, they were never meant to be taken literally. His message is one of hope and change. We can all learn valuable lessons from his speeches but – lol – you can’t apply those ideas directly to policy – that was never the intended purpose of his message.

Toyota Recall

Yeah! Another fat-cat scapegoat! Yeah, let’s get’m! Whoohoo!

Obama getting tough on China for trade agreement infractions

I’m getting tough on my credit cards too. I’m taking a different approach though. I’m paying off the debt – or at least trying.

Underpants bomber now talking, encouraged by parents

Wow Obama administration! Way to go getting the kid to ignore his lawyer’s advice. If only all terrorists had responsible parents. And thanks for telling us about it too. Now all of America knows how great of a job you’re doing protecting us. Hey, so have you gone ahead and put Al Qaeda on the list to receive your FUCKING news letter yet?

Sarah Palin to receive $100k speaking fee for Tea Party Convention

Only a Liberal would find this controversial. She’s a Conservative from Alaska. What do you think she’s going to do with the cash? Buy something with it? You give those people a rifle and a pair of boots – a few years later they’ve got a city with a shipping port. Watch, she’ll invest in some unknown little jackass somewhere and turn another baby-blue state red. Astroturf my ass… U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A

Healthcare reform bill stalled

Ok guys, I get it. You got caught up in all the inaugural excitement. We elected Obama assuming “change” meant a thoughtful approach, but you thought we gave you a mandate to turn the country on its keel. So you went after you’re dreams: single payer, sky-rocketing business costs, and reduced carbon output. I can’t blame anyone for going after their dreams. And hey, at least you go that juicy stimulus!

But those darn Democrats, they got in your way. Single payer was compromised into single payer under a different name – then into a public option. Then even that was compromised – first into some fancy long winded name coined by Pelosi that essentially meant public option, and finally, a year later, into nothing more than a list new regulations – more similar to the Republican alternative to Hillary Care than the brilliant progressive stride we were all assuming would slide through. (Eh, regardless of the naïve math and unfunded state Medicaid mandates) And to add insult to injury, you have to buy some of those Dem votes too.

And darn-it – you could have passed it. Hell, you could have passed a bill covering sea lions FFS. I know you’d like to blame the Republicans, but shit man – you knew you had all the power and that’s how you wrote the bill. No Republican could have voted for that thing any more than you guys could all climb on board with invading Iraq! Or – wait. You got tricked on that one – hu? Well, you know what I mean. You can’t blame the dog you’re walking when you walk into a pole – even if he was enthusiastic about it.

So the question is: What now. Indeed, this bill is shot to shit. Stack that monstrosity on the back of the toilet in the staff bathroom. But what now? Should you pole-vault over the wall with Pelosi? Should you try to come to some reasonable consensus with a few reasonable Republicans? Should you keep this unorganized circus with your ring leader off in his own ring singing his poems?

I’m not sure what you should do. I’d like to see some actual reform though.

Congress to cut funding for KSM trial in NY

Every time anyone asks Obama or anyone in his admin a question about trying KSM in civilian court, they duck the question and assure us he’ll be convicted and executed. So if this is just going to be a $1 billion show trial – why not just “have the trial” (wink-wink)? You know – take a few days off, “have the trial,” print up some transcripts and stuff, execute the bastard, and use the $1 billion on some new Predator drones or something.

Don’t ask don’t tell – once again up for debate

What part of “don’t ask don’t tell” is so hard to understand?

So Cheney has been busting Obama’s balls about national security. I’ve been thinking a little about that. Now – from the casual observer it can be noted that his criticism has been helping Obama by causing all the flaky and miss-matched Democrats to rally around him. And assuming that Cheney is indeed against the Obama agenda, it might seem illogical. It might seem that Cheney has some vindictive hair up his ass.

But let’s give this more than 1 and ½ second’s worth of thought. Cheney is a smart man. You can call him evil or crazy – but you have to admit he knows how to make things happen his way. Maybe he is seriously concerned about Obama’s approach – or lack of – to national security. Maybe he knows more about the situation we’re in and our ability to deal with it than we do – since it used to be his job.

Or maybe it is animosity. Maybe Cheney believes – as I believe – that a serious attack will be getting through –probably in less than a year. And if Cheney wants to totally cripple Obama’s agenda, his current criticism might be an effort in making every lax move Obama makes regarding national security starkly apparent so that when the attack does finally get through – when the next weaponized article of clothing operates as intended – everyone will know exactly who to blame.

Yahoo News Politico Article

Sure, after six decades of service and sacrifice Mc Cain has suddenly turned selfish… That’s like those 15-year-old girls who accuse their mother’s of being jealous of their sexual escapades after being confronted about them after catching an STD.

The reason Mc Cain isn’t beating on Republicans anymore, and the reason he’s going after the Democratic agenda, is because this whole thing as shifted FAR to the left. Even now Mc Cain is advocating further-Left policies than he was 8 years ago.

There’s also the fact that Obama isn’t the guy who campaigned or got elected. You remember the first time Mc Cain got pissed? It was during the ram-through of the deficit-spending “stimulus” bill that included zero interaction with the Republicans and was practically 100% assorted pork. And more recently we’ve had the covert writing of the different healthcare reform bills – you know – the thing Obama claimed would be written on C-CPAN so we could all see the oozing bipartisanship and lack of deal making. Instead the Democrats have embraced the dirty Washington style of business on a scale of magnitude one greater and in the style of arrogant gangsters! Essentially, they’re trying to pass this bill using the tactics and methods that were supposed to be thrown out due to the Change®.

Mc Cain is just like the rest of the rational Americans who lent Obama the benefit of the doubt. We’re all pissed this kid charmed his way in, and is now using the exact same tactics and mechanisms he chastised during the campaign – to push forward his own ideology.

Seriously, you can’t accuse Mc Cain of animosity. For crying out loud, if anyone had a right to animosity in thisworld it would be Mc Cain. He’s been through some serious shit and bears the scars of proof that have him hobbling around like a Heman action figure. But he’s not. Mc Cain has something called character. He’s been around long enough to know how to deal with hurt feelings…

Now if you want to see some butt-hurt animosity, there’s no fresher source than Obama his self. He gets angry and frustrated by the kindest criticism, and has reacted in a way opposite to the advertised Obama® way.

What’s holding Obama up on this Afghanistan decision? I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the past few MONTHS but this is getting ridiculous. I’m starting to think this big long stall is just a process of appeasing his base. He wants the eventual decision to send more troops to seem extra double well thought out, as though he agonized and studied every other possibility. And he trapped himself during the campaign by demonizing Mc Cain’s support of Iraq and calling Afghanistan the “good war” – before the surge cleared up Iraq and before Afghanistan fell apart.

We’ll see. If he only sends part of the troops his Generals require to implement the strategy Obama set out so long ago – that means this has been a political stall tactic. If he does actually send what the Generals require – then I’ll believe he’s actually been mulling, but it will be a tough sell still.

If he was actually committed to a strategy for victory he could have (would have) had troops moving this whole time. It takes a while after the decision is made you know. Hell, if he was really interested in this strategy he’d have some significant increases over there by now – before winter – and the new units could be spending Christmas and New Year training their Afghan sister unit not to wear pink shirts on patrol and remember to take their rifle and ammo when they go outside. All this dicking around has cost us a whole year. And if you’re concerned about cost and loss, a year is a long damn time to maintain an outdated strategy / troop count.

If he decides to abandon his strategy and not send any more troops – that will mean the only logical new strategy would be drawdown to a small anti-terror force. In that case, I’d call this big stall an attempt at ass-covering to avoid seeming soft on national defense.

And BTW – is anyone else becoming averse to Obama’s speeches? I used to make sure I caught each and every one. But he’s made so many! So many addresses and speeches everywhere he goes. He says so much without really saying anything. I first noticed it when he was addressing New Orleans. It was his normal inspiring long winded poetry. I noticed it wasn’t affecting me emotionally like it used to because I could see the list of promises and ideas floating out of his skilled mouth and falling into the rotting Obama promises pile. I started to get angry. I though, “Those broke-ass Katrina victims don’t need his damn we’ll-fix-it poetry!” It’s like listening to a motivational speaker. I change the channel when his speeches come up now… I’ll catch the summary later – if even that matters. Pelosi and Reid are running things anyway. His poetry sessions and the legislation congress is wrestling with are two different turkeys.

We knew about it. That’s probably one of the many reasons Bush had a big boner for Iran. When you’re trying to keep good intelligence coming in the last thing you want to do is release the intelligence you have. (you also want to avoid exasperating your intelligence agents) If you start letting secrets slip out your sources will soon dry up – because the enemy will ‘plug’ those leaks.

Obama’s taking a different approach. He’s crippling our intelligence efforts in order to show ‘evidence’ to trying pulling in multi-national support. lol

I was thinking earlier about the nuclear deproliferation thing. Unless Obama is just pandering to the far left – some more, it might be a tactic. He might be trying to build credibility. He figures if all the big nations are agreeing to get rid of nukes Iran and N Korea will agree to stop making theirs. Indeed – that’s totally stupid because both regimes are irrational and unreasonable, and know that once they do get a functioning nuclear weapons system they can do all sorts of fun things. Iran can firmly take control of the Middle East and N Korea can keep extorting all kinds of goodies from the free world – or open a nuke store.

Obama seems convinced that his charming personality can win over this unreasonableness. But Kim and Mahmoud know his game – they play it too, they know all about ignoring reality and appealing to the emotions of the listeners with generalities. They’re immune to Obama’s fancy speeches.

And there’s one other problem. They know American politics well enough to know the US currently has no backbone. Look at Afghanistan! There is controversy around sending Gates what he needs to square things away like they did in Iraq – because increasing troop numbers is the big scary no-no in Leftist politics, since Vietnam anyway.

Mc Cain was right – again – as usual. It’s not US presence- it is US casualties that makes Americans loose their stomach. Is anyone protesting Iraq? No. American soldiers aren’t getting killed much anymore. We could keep a base there for the next 50 year, like we have in Germany and Japan, and Americans wouldn’t care. But now Americans are dying in Afghanistan and we can’t learn the simple lessons we’ve learned this past 8 years. People are still whining to bring the troops home and the government is still trying to play both sides by not fully committing and getting the job done.

Obama isn’t even thinking about fully committing and fixing Afghanistan. He wants to sit on things and contemplate a strategy using fewer troops and only focusing on protecting the cities and high population concentrations. That’s ridicules on multiple levels. We need to be in the boonies because that’s where Al Qaeda is. The country people are the ones we need to make friends with. We can’t expect to sit in the urban areas or off shore and lob missiles and send in special forces strikes because we won’t have the intelligence to know what to hit.

Please Obama – give Gates what he needs. Let him square things way and get Afghanistan and Pakistan standing on some even ground. Then we can stare N Korea and Iran down with the full force of our all volunteer, unprecedentedly compassionate and careful, most ass-kickingest military the world has ever known. Then you can tell Kim and Mahmoud, “Knock if off! Or next summer you’ll find some 6-foot-tall American kids pulling you out of the rat hole you’ve been hiding in since Ramadan.”

LOL – I can be wishful can’t I?