CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Iraq War ends on Bush's schedule, not Obama's

President Obama and the biased media wing of the Democrat Party are heralding the "official" end of the Iraq War.

They are neglecting to note that in order to get the Democrats' nomination, presidential candidate Obama promised to remove all combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months:

Whatever nuance Barack Obama is now adding to his Iraq withdrawal strategy, the core plan on his Web site is as plain as day: Obama would "immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months."

As we reported in July 2008, Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan was not realistic. To save face, President Obama redesignated the 7 remaining combat brigades still in Iraq after his artificial 16 month deadline as "Advise and Assist Brigades," and declared his scheduled end to the war in Iraq on August 31, 2011

All U.S. troops, except for a 159 uniformed troops and officers as well as a marine guard in the US embassy in Baghdad, will be out of Iraq before December 31, 2011, as required by the Status of Forces Agreement President Bush made with Iraq.

The Democrats can trumpet the Obama Iraq withdrawal all they want, but it was accomplished right on schedule -- a schedule established by President Bush, not Obama.

Combat brigades still in Iraq, but now called 'advise and assist brigades'

Seven years after President Bush declared an end to major combat operations, President Obama claimed our combat mission in Iraq will end this month. On cue, the mainstream media dutifully reported the withdrawal of the last combat brigade from Iraq.

That was last week. As with all things Obama, the storyline reported by the mainstream media obfuscates the truth. Now, via the Army Times, we learn that the 50,000 U.S. troops remaining in Iraq include seven "Advise and Assist Brigades," two air combat brigades and two National Guard infantry brigades. The "Advise and Assist Brigades" are distinguished from "full" combat brigades by additional training prior to deployment:

The Army has three different standard brigade combat teams: infantry, Stryker and heavy. To build an Advise and Assist Brigade, the Army selects one of these three and puts it through special training before deploying.

The smoke and mirrors re-designation allows the "advisory" brigades to retain an inherent capability to conduct offensive and defensive operations. These brigades can shift operational focus from security force assistance to combat operations as required.

In other words, Obama just gives combat brigades still deployed in Iraq a new designation and declares the combat mission over.

'Mission accomplished' redux - Obama declares War in Iraq ended

President Obama visited Camp Lejeune, N.C., to declare the war in Iraq ended on August 31, 2010:



Even though 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq Obama claims "mission accomplished." 

We have been telling you for nearly a year that Obama would leave significant numbers of troops in Iraq and that his 16-month withdrawal timetable wasn't doable.

You can read Obama's entire speech here.

A victory for all Iraqis, and the U.S.

Iraqis went to the polls again today and voted for local representatives, on an almost violence-free election day:

More than 14,000 candidates are competing for 440 seats in 14 of Iraq’s 18 provinces. The seats are for provincial councils that control municipal budgets and have the power to hire and fire people, giving successful candidates a great deal of power and influence in a nation with high unemployment.

Prime Minister Maliki declared it a victory:

"I am very happy today because all the indications and information indicate a big turnout in the voting centers. This is a victory for all Iraqis."

It is also a victory for the United States and President George W Bush. Under President Bush's resolute leadership, America liberated Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny. Today's successful vote, as well as Iraq's 2005 parliamentary elections signal the birth of the first free Muslim society in the heart of the Mideast.

Watch the following Associated Press video report:

Bush winning war on terror

At the Telegraph, Nile Gardiner gives President Bush his due for the global war against Islamist terror.

Gardiner writes that the decision to invade Iraq could ultimately prove to have been a masterstroke:

• Today the world is witnessing the birth of the first truly democratic state in the Middle East outside of Israel. More than eight million voted in Iraq's parliamentary elections in 2005, and the region's first free Muslim society may become a reality.

• The success of the surge in Iraq will go down in history as a turning point in the war against al-Qaeda. The stunning defeat of the insurgency was a major blow both militarily and psychologically for the terror network.

• There has not been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, and for all the global condemnation of pre-emptive strikes, Guantanamo and the use of rendition against terror suspects, the fact remains that Bush's aggressive strategy actually worked.

• There have been no successful terrorist attacks in Europe since the July 2005 London bombings, in large part due to the cooperation between U.S., British and other Western intelligence agencies.

• The decision by Bush, with Blair's support, to sweep the Taliban out of Afghanistan was a brilliant move, one that not all U.S. presidents would have taken. A weaker leader would have gone to the United Nations Security Council and sought a negotiated settlement with Kabul. It was a risky gambit that was vindicated by a stunning military victory in the space of a month, with a small number of U.S. ground forces involved.

• Bush succeeded in building a 41-nation NATO-led coalition to support Afghanistan. The notion that the resurgence of the Taliban is America's failure is nonsense. The U.S. has more than 30,000 troops in the country under U.S. or NATO command, making up over half of all Allied forces there. Continental European allies have simply failed to step up to the plate with more troops.

• President Bush also recognized the importance of reshaping the NATO alliance for the 21st Century, backing an ambitious program of NATO expansion, culminating in the addition of seven new members in 2004. He also had the foresight to support the development of a missile defense system in Europe.

Much of the left's relentless criticism of the President is driven by personal animosity without any rational analysis of his achievements.

I have my quibbles with President Bush, but I will always be grateful for his steadfast leadership in the war and the fact that his administration managed to keep the terrorists from attacking the U.S. for the more than seven years since 9/11.

President Bush makes fourth trip to Iraq

President Bush arrived at Baghdad international airport on Air Force One Sunday morning

He is expected to meet Iraqi leaders, thank US troops for their work in the country and celebrate a new security agreement, a White House spokesman said.

The President left Washington aboard Air Force One at about 9:00 p.m. Eastern time Saturday.

Because of concern for the president’s safety, the White House imposed secrecy in the run-up to his departure:

Reporters who were to accompany Bush were individually informed of the trip -- in person and barely a day in advance. They also were forbidden from reporting on the trip until after touchdown in Iraq.

In addition, the White House engaged in a bit of public deception.

On Friday evening, even as presidential press secretary Dana Perino was meeting with a reporter in her car on Capitol Hill to disclose the trip and its logistics, the White House released a press schedule that had the president and First Lady Laura Bush attending a Sunday evening Christmas celebration in Washington. He isn’t due back until tomorrow.

Bush’s press office sent notices summoning the small group of reporters who accompany the president on even the most routine visits in Washington to gather at the White House this morning and this evening.

The president has made three previous trips to Iraq -- on Thanksgiving 2003, June 13, 2006 and Sept. 3, 2007.

Still waiting for Murtha to apologize

One reason John Murtha is having difficulty getting reelected may be the unpatriotic way he has treated our troops fighting in Iraq.

In May 2006, Murtha accused a group of United States Marines of killing “innocent civilians in cold blood.” Murtha made these outrageous allegations during an ongoing investigation.

As a result of the investigation, charges were dropped against 7 of the 8 Marines and the other Marine is waiting for his day in court.

Nevertheless, Murtha still has not withdrawn or apologized for his despicable statement.

Vets for freedom takes Murtha to task in a new ad:

The Marines Murtha wrongly slandered deserve an apology.

Help these vets get Murtha to apologize.  Please sign the following petition:

 

Governor Palin shows how to silence a heckler

Governor Palin silences a heckler:

Bless your heart sir, my son is over in Iraq fighting for your right to protest right now.

You can watch the governor nail the heckler at 1:27 into the following video:

Well done.

Obama tried to stall Iraq withdrawal

Amei Taheri reports that even while Obama called for a speedy withdrawal from Iraq on the campaign trail, The Democrats' standard bearer privately tried to delay an agreement on a draw-down of U.S. forces from Iraq:

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Taheri also reports that Obama also failed to "persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a 'realistic withdrawal date.'"

This, like his prediction that the surge would make things worse, is further evidence of Obama's poor judgment on national security matters.

Taheri explains how Obama's stalling tactic was not well thought out:

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

Obama once again caught saying one thing, while doing another. Trying to delay an Iraq withdrawal is a good example of why Obama had to change his mantra from "change we can believe in" to "change we need." We can't believe in the change Obama says he proposes because we can't count on anything Obama says.

Don't forget Obama broke his promise to vote against and filibuster the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) re-authorization, went back on his commitment to accept public financing for the general election. Obama also has reversed course on NAFTA, whether the D.C. gun ban was constitutional, meeting with rogue leaders without preconditions and the unity of Jerusalem. That's Obama's change.

Confidence in War on Terror and Iraq at Highest Level Ever

Rasmussen Reports finds that voter confidence in the War on Terror is at the highest level ever recorded by Rasmussen:

Fifty-four percent (54%) of American voters now think the United States and its allies are winning the war. The previous high-water mark for optimism--52%--was reached a handful of times in September and October 2004.

Optimism about the situation in Iraq is also at an all-time high. Forty-eight percent (48%) now expect the situation in that troubled country to get better over the next six months. Only 17% expect things to get worse. In addition to being the most optimistic assessment ever recorded, these numbers reflect a remarkable turnaround over the past year. Last August, just 27% thought things were going to get better while 47% were pessimistic.

Democrats may rue the day they again allowed the party to become the antiwar party.

In 1972, the Democrats nominated the antiwar Senator George McGovern. His dovishness resulted in a humiliating defeat.

The Democratic majority in Congress, like the current Democrats in Congress, then turned against the war. Americans came to perceive the Democrats as weak on national security.

President Jimmy Carter was seen as naive in dealing with the Soviet Union, when it invaded Afghanistan, and in dealing with the 1980 Iranian hostage crisis.

Ronald Reagan popularized the notion of "peace through strength." Democrats argued that Reagan was a bellicose "cowboy." The collapse of the Soviet's evil empire shortly after Reagan left office, convinced many Americans that Reagan was correct and the Democrats were wrong.

Obama's legislative proposal to get out of Iraq by April 2008, just as our current progress was apparent, will just reinforced the perception that the Democrats are weak on national security.