I agree with Glenn Beck. Seriously. I’m not kidding.

Every once in a while, people with strong political biases will step back and question their own beliefs.  When that happens, it rightly makes the news.

The situation in Iraq has produced a few turnarounds, the most surprising of which is former shock radio host and current talk radio host Glenn Beck.  “[Liberals] said we couldn’t force freedom on people,” Beck said yesterday. “Let me lead with my mistakes. You were right. Liberals, you were right, we shouldn’t have.”

He went on:  glenn_beck

“In spite of the things I felt at the time when we went into war, liberals said, ‘We shouldn’t get involved, we shouldn’t nation-build and there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free. I thought that was insulting at the time. Everybody wants to be free.”  However, he admitted, “You cannot force democracy on the Iraqis or anybody else.  It doesn’t work. They don’t understand it or even really want it.”

Pat Robertson said similar things as well.  “And so to sell the American people on weapons of mass destruction, he had WMD and was getting [concentrated uranium] yellowcake out of Africa and all of that, it was a lot of nonsense,” the preacher said. “We were sold a bill of goods, we should never have gone into that country!  As bad as Saddam Hussein was, he held those warring factions in check, and he contained those radical Islamists,” he continued. “It’s too late to fix it. It’s unfixable. Those simmering animosities have been there for centuries.”  (Of course Robertson thinks the solution is just around the corner, what with the coming Rapture and everything.)

All this makes Joe Biden look like he may know what he’s talking about with foreign policy.  While he did vote for going into Iraq, he states it was because of Bush’s lies about weapons of mass destruction.  But almost as soon as we were there, Biden suggested splitting the country into three factions.  “The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group — Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab — room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests,” he wrote in a New York Times editorial in 2006.

“It is increasingly clear that President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq,” he said. “Rather, he hopes to prevent defeat and pass the problem along to his successor.”

Maybe we should be listening to Biden more often, hm?

Obama’s Time Machine

Obama has been using his Time Machine again.  And this time, in coordination with his vampire abilities to charm people into doing his bidding.*   168349

The latest example where he had used his Time Machine was when he went back to 2008 and charmed President George W. Bush into signing a treaty requiring the United States to pull all of its troops out of Iraq by 2011.   That is the only explanation I can think of to explain why all the pundits over at Fox News keep blaming Obama.  (Well, come on, they aren’t going to blame Bush, are they?  He declared “Mission Accomplished” almost immediately after the Iraq war had begun so it can’t be his fault!  Remember, Donald Rumsfield said it would last “six months, top.”)

Where Obama went wrong was in not staying there forever, according to John McCain (who also had supported a war that he proclaimed would be over by 2004.)

These guys who were all massively wrong about what would happen in Iraq are now blaming Obama for their mistakes over ten years ago.   Why anyone would listen to any one these incredibly wrong people have to say is beyond me.

 

* Does this look like a blatant attempt to promote my latest book “Bloodsuckers:  A Vampire Runs For President”?  Thought so.

We can afford the wars, just not the veterans

Senator Jeff Sessions has never met a war he didn’t like.  Iraq?  Afghanistan?  No problem!  Don’t worry about how we’ll pay for it.

But the veterans who served in those wars?  Taking care of them, as we promised? Well, that’s an “entitlement” that we should not be spending money on.Sotomayor

And you know, ultimately spending up to $6 trillion dollars is a bit much, especially with our deficit.  I can see why he was against such a huge amount.  Oh, wait.  My bad.  $6 trillion is the estimated total cost of the Iraq war.  How silly of me.  That’s different.  Sessions had no problem voting for that.

Republicans who claim to be “fiscally conservative” rarely are — they are against tax rates that would balance the budget because it would hurt huge corporations and their rich friends and the only thing they ever want to cut are government services to people.  It’s rare to find one who would cut a military plane or tank we don’t need.

And the ones who claim to “support our troops” often only do so until they enlist. After that, they won’t spend money so our troops can have the armor or medical benefits they need.  (It’s kind of like how they are “pro-life” at least until the baby is born, at which time, you’re on your own.)

Surprised about Iraq?

“Iraq wasn’t a threat to the US when we invaded it in 2003, but thousands of lives and billions of dollars later, it finally is.” – Andy Borowitz

All experts told us that Sadaam Hussein had kept the three religious factions of Iraq from a civil war through his strong-arm tactics.  Even before George W. Bush lied to us about Sadaam, leading to thousands of American deaths and being considered as a war criminal by anyone who understands the term, we knew this to be true. BushMissionAccomplished I recall that after Sadaam fell, there were experts saying the best thing we could do would be to split the country into three parts or else there would be a civil war.  Bush refused, and more Americans died.  

Obama kept his promise to get out of there (a decision that was supported by the vast majority of Americans), and the civil war that everyone predicted has now happened.  (Seriously, did anyone with a brain think that democracy would suddenly flower?)

So now the Republicans are blaming Obama.  Apparently they would prefer that we stayed there and kept getting Americans killed to postpone the inevitable.  Not one is blaming Bush for his illegal war, his “Mission Accomplished” claim, and his pure ineptitude for getting us into an unnecessary and pointless war.

 

 

 

A warning to soldiers

If you lay your life on the line for America, be forewarned:  We may not try to rescue you if you get captured.

This is a new policy, urged on by Republicans.  Yes, yes, I know — they always claim they “support the troops” but it’s similar to the way they are pro-life.  Their love for babies ends after birth, and their love for soldiers ends after they enlist.  June.Flagg_.Recruiting

From what I can gather, the GOP supports a policy of not making sure every soldier that is captured is returned.  Apparently if they think you might be someone they don’t like, then we should not rescue you.  A trial to determine your guilt is unnecessary.

This is completely unprecedented in American history, as all the Generals and military personnel have explained.  In fact, this is the exact same policy that got John McCain freed from an enemy prison, something he has apparently forgotten (which is not too surprising, because months ago he was criticizing Obama for not making this deal).

So no matter what we used to do, things have changed!  Once more, the goal of destroying this president outweighs whatever harm comes to this nation.  (A side note:  A few responsible Republicans have refused to jump on this anti-American bandwagon, and they should be applauded.)

Obama has refused to back down or give in to the complainers.  Here’s what he said:

“This is not some abstraction; this is not some political football. You have a couple of parents whose kid volunteered to fight in a distant land, who they hadn’t seen in five years, and weren’t sure whether they’d ever see again. And as commander in chief of the United States armed forces, I am responsible for those kids.  I write too many letters to folks who unfortunately don’t see their children again after fighting a war.  I make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents, and that the American people understand that this is somebody’s child, and that we don’t condition whether or not we make the effort to try and get them back.”

So it’s time to rethink our recruiting posters.  “I Want YOU” needs to have an asterisk, with the note “unless you can be used in a way that harms our political rivals.”

How much is a POW worth?

You’d think everyone would be celebrating the return of a POW from captivity.  Certainly the Republicans (who always claim to “support our troops”) would be in favor of this, right?   POW

And at first they were.  They even urged Obama to do it.

Then reality set in:  If we celebrate this, that means Obama wins!  Republicans have now deleted tweets and comments made in support of this, and have gone full force into attack mode.  And some of it has gotten rather ridiculous.

They’ve attacked the reputation of Bergdahl at every opportunity, using innuendo and speculation and ignoring real facts.

They’ve accused Obama of negotiating with terrorists (when actually the deal was made by Qatar, not us) while conveniently forgetting how their hero Ronald Reagan did the same thing (which caused the “Iran/Contra scandal where people actually went to jail).  Bush officials have said that they would have done the same thing.

Fox News said that Bergdahl’s father looks like a terrorist because he grew a beard.  For some reason, they never said that about their heroes in Duck Dynasty…

The alleged terrorists had been sitting in Gitmo for years without ever being charged with anything, despite court orders to do so, and will be released to Qatar where their travel will be severely limited.

Critics are now saying that the release of Berdahl wasn’t worth it.  Really?  What price do we put on a POW’s life?

So what’s the truth?  I don’t know;  I don’t have access to the information the President has, and neither do any of his critics.  Will this turn out to be a bad thing in the long run?  Maybe.

But we should not really be surprised by this reaction from the President’s enemies.  Half of them didn’t even want to give him credit for killing bin Laden, either.

Benghazi! It’s in Cuba, right?

A large percentage of Republicans, urged on by Fox News, are convinced that Benghazi is the worst example of corruption ever in American politics.  Worse than Watergate, worse than Iran/Contra, worse than the Teapot Dome Scandal.   Awful, terrible scandal.

They can’t quite explain what the scandal is, though.  The best I have ever been able to figure out is that bad decisions were made.  It’s not like there were accusations of bribes being taken or something.    130517-benghazi-busted2

“But the Obama administration is full of corruption!” they say, citing the fact that there have been exactly zero Obama administration officials charged with crimes (as opposed to Bush, or especially their hero Reagan, whose numbers dwarf even Nixon’s list).

These conspiracy lovers have convinced themselves that there is something there.  They’re convinced it exists, even though there’s no evidence for it.  Like Bigfoot.  (The fact that most of the same people have no idea where Benghazi even is tells you something.)

They tried to tie Obama to it — remember Romney accusing Obama of not calling it a terrorist action even though Obama is on record the day after the incident calling it just that?  Romney foolishly bought the conspiracy nut’s version of the story, which was clearly and blatantly not true.  And they haven’t stopped!  (You think it’s a coincidence that many of these people are the same ones convinced that Obama was born in Kenya?)  These people have been caught lying more than once about Benghazi, which is why the rational media has mostly been ignoring them.  (Fox, of course, left rationality long ago.)

Now they’re trying to tie Hillary to it, since she’s the latest threat.  So far, it hasn’t worked … the hardcore crazies are riled up, but those people were never going to vote Democratic anyway.  Polls show that the majority of Americans see this as the airless political stunt it is.

 

 

 

There is absolute evil in the world

Sometimes, when we’re arguing over minimum wage or legalization of marijuana or some other issue that is important to Americans, we should sit back and realize that our problems aren’t really that big, and we have a lot more in common than we seem to.  

Because when I read about absolute evil in the world, everything else seems minor in comparison. nigeria

A radical religious group in Nigeria recently kidnapped over two hundred girls whose crime it had been to want to learn.  These schoolgirls offended these fanatic’s views, so now these innocent children are being sold into slavery and forced into “marriages”.

These animals have killed thousands over the past few years as they attempt to cleanse the world of the unbelievers.  If you saw this in a movie, you’d think it would be far-fetched.

I may rant and rail against religious conservatives in America who want to force their religious laws on the rest of us, but that is so minor compared to evil of this type.

It just makes me depressed for humanity, as I realize how young humans are and how far we have to go.

So why aren’t people more outraged?  Why isn’t this the main story on the news?  Do you think if this had happened in Europe or Australia we would have heard more about it?  A plane that crashed has gotten more airtime than this…

So what do we do about Putin?

Clearly, we must do something, but what?

Many political pundits are screaming that Obama is not acting strong enough but, as I said weeks ago, no one is making any real suggestions as to what should be done.   (I’m not counting Sarah Palin’s suggestion to use nukes;  I’m talking about real suggestions from rational people.)  Vladimir-Putin-as-Dobby-90100

Most military commentators who aren’t just political mouthpieces admit that this would have happened no matter who was in the White House (pointing out properly that Putin invaded Georgia while Bush was President).  Still, there are many Americans seem to think that everything in the world is about us.  Ask any foreigner and they will tell you that they do not make decisions based on what America thinks any more than we do based on what they think.

Putin is clearly the bad guy here, and simply sending in 007 won’t work this time.  (Since whenever I look at Putin, I see Dobby, maybe instead we should send in Harry Potter.)

Economic sanctions are already working on Russia;  military action may backfire tremendously (especially since it appears that a majority of those in Crimera actually support Russia in this).

So we’re back to the first question:  What should we do?

Fox reacts to Putin’s invasion predictably

“Well, obviously it’s beyond our control. The Russians are advancing. There is nothing that will stop them. We are not going to go to war over it.” — Charles Krauthammer

“There’s really no danger the United States or Europe will get in involved in what is really a civil war.” — Jeff Birnbaum  FoxNews

“We simply don’t have the ground forces to do it.  And confronting the Russians in the air would lead to major hostilities that the USA cannot afford right now.” — Bill O’Reilly

Not one blamed the President for the invasion or implied that Putin did this because the President was “weak.”

Oh, wait!  My bad!  Sorry, these are quotes from Fox News after Putin invaded Georgia when George W. Bush was President.  You remember Bush, who said that he looked into Putin’s soul and saw a good man.

I don’t really have to post what these exact same people are saying about Obama now, do I?  I mean, it’s so predictable, you could write it yourself.