Enjoy!

Watch CBS News Videos Online

At least his dad was a drunk — what’s his excuse?  … Oh yeah…

The Iraq War is getting an official name change from Operation Iraqi Freedom to the much clearer and more succinct “Operation New Dawn.”  Like changing the name of the War on Terror to “overseas contingency operations” the Obama Administration has done it again — change the name, infer the completion of the mission, and claim victory whether or not conditions have changed one bit!  Geez, no wonder everyone thought Bush was so dumb — all he needed to do was change the names of things and it would have made it all better!

The thing is though, “Operation New Dawn” isn’t even an original name!  Operation New Dawn (al-Fajr) was the local name of Operation Phantom Fury under which we took Fallujah back in late 2004.  The Iraqi ministers didn’t like the sound of “Phantom Fury” (I guess it reminded them too much of a bad George Lucas movie — meessa don’t like a-dat one either!), so we changed it.

So the Obama Nation has decided to essentially recast the war to demonstrate our changing role in that country by changing its name.  Truth be told, Operation Desert Shield turned into Desert Storm, so there is a precedent for this, but what has changed recently to warrant the name change now?  What’s wrong with calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom?  Read this op-ed to pursue that chain of thought — does “Dawn” say more than “Freedom” as to the nature of our mission in Iraq?  These folks are both confusing and embarrassing when it comes to foreign policy.

I know, I know!  It’s so shocking and such a surprise — news that just seemingly appeared from nowhere!

Mind the sarcasm, but Captain Obvious strikes again:  the IAEA has just released a report indicating that it seems like Iran is making a nuclear bomb.  Hans Blix was nowhere to be found in the report, so I’m not sure I can trust it fully.  US Intelligence came to this very same conclusion officially in 2007, but the UN is usually kind of slow on these things.  If Iran’s not careful, the IAEA may be ready to prepare a strongly-worded letter.   I’m serious — they might actually do it!

While the report is important, it still doesn’t do anything.  To Iran more sanctions from the UN means a little more time before Iran can use nuclear blackmail to get them all lifted.  Russia and China are still not likely to change their position on Iran.  Until they are ready to move, Iran can pretty much do whatever it pleases.

The New York Times is reporting that American and Pakistani intelligence officials recently captured the Taliban’s top military commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, in Karachi.  Baradar is in Pakistani custody, but American officials are involved in the interrogations.  They are hopeful that Baradar may have information on the whereabouts of Taliban Leader Mullah Omar.  Capturing a prominent terrorist is itself a cause for celebration, but Americans should be grateful for another reason.  This story shows that both the Obama Administration and the mainstream media may have learned some valuable lessons about the War on Terror.

As Power Line implies, the Obama Administration appears to have finally realized that Mirandizing a terrorist is not the most effective strategy in obtaining information useful in prosecuting the war.  Of course the Administration is unlikely to ever admit that they botched the handling of the terrorist who nearly blew up an aircraft over Detroit on Christmas Day by reading him his rights, but no matter.  By allowing Baradar to remain in Pakistani custody, the Administration has effectively bypassed their artificially-created requirement that terrorists be given the right to remain silent.  As a result the nation is safer even if the Administration never admits it was wrong before now.

The New York Times also appears to have learned a lesson about the War on Terror.  During the Bush Administration, the editors at the Grey Whore apparently thought it was their journalistic duty to expose useful covert information for the whole world to see.  As the above-linked Times piece makes clear, the Obama Administration has succeeded in teaching the Times that national security sometimes requires media outfits to refrain from publishing sensitive information.  Of course the Times’ prudent decision regarding Baradar could also be political bias, but no one could ever seriously question the integrity of the New York Times.  Therefore, they must have learned a valuable lesson.

Newly-elected Senator Scott Brown (R-MA; yes, it still feels good to say that) is involved in a war of words with the Obama Administration’s court jester, Vice President Joe Biden.  Joe Biden suggested on Face the Nation this weekend that Brown didn’t know what he was talking about when it came to military tribunals, stating that Brown must get his facts straight, and that defendants in a military tribunal get lawyers as well.  This was in response to this statement from Brown in which he attacked the administration over the use of military tribunals in the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

I’ve always felt that suspected terrorists should be tried in military tribunals and not civilian court, and as a matter of fact so do the majority of Americans.  The big difference is are we going to pay $1,000 an hour for a private attorney and treat him as a civilian or ordinary criminal in a criminal court, or are we going give him a military attorney who’s going to be paid as a captain, major or lieutenant colonel, and obviously go through the military tribunal process?

The Vice-President apparently missed the last part.  What is particularly insulting about Biden’s remarks is that Brown is part of the Massachusetts’ Army National Guard Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) office, which is the legal arm of the military.  Brown, in fact, is the chief defense attorney for the New England JAG.  Scott Brown knows what he is talking about, and the court jester is simply a buffoon.  Who would you trust – the man who wanted to split Iraq into three pieces, opposed the surge, and then tried to take credit for it, or the man who has served honorably and could easily be qualified as an expert in military law?  You tell me.

Yesterday, the Pentagon announced the successful test of an airborne anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defense system which used frickin’ laser beams on a modified Boeing 747 to destroy its target!   The Airborne Laser Testbed (ALTB) was just a test, but a pretty cool one.  Using a directed energy laser system, two of ALTB’s targets were destroyed.  Of course, the target missile has to be in its early boost phase and we have to know where it’s coming from, but it is a great start;  it’s cheaper and potentially more effective than our existing ABM system and this technology likely has the potential to be modified for ground or naval based applications.

I suppose SDI is not so out of reach!  Either way, I love the 80s graphics:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s “big” proclamation which was supposed to scare the pants off the West happened to be a pretty predictable one.  Iran is now in possession of some highly-enriched uranium with the capability of enriching higher.  You need 90% enrichment for weapons, but Mahmoud admitted their capabilities range from 20-80%.  Meaning, not much has changed from yesterday to today, except the admission that the process is well under way to getting a bomb within months.

While not a good development, who can really say that this was a surprise?  I’m sure the IAEA is preparing a strongly-worded letter, the US is preparing to enforce new sanctions announced yesterday (whoopie!), and Israel is fueling up the jets for their increasingly inevitable attack.

With nothing else on our whittled options list, our President (if he had any guts) would give an unambiguous speech today promising complete political solidarity with the Iranian street.  External pressure has done nothing but isolate and embolden Mahmoud, so maybe some real internal pressure might make him sweat.  Like all good administrations, Obama could look back at American history and see that over the last sixty years America has supported democratic movements all over the globe.  Solidarity with this student uprising would be consistent with our history and might give us an edge in this latest crisis.  Something new would be silence — certainly “change”, but not a lot of “hope” for Iran’s street should the President remain quiet.

But the Obama Himself, didn’t pronounce it right!

In fact, most of my 10th graders know that “corpsman” is pronounced “core-man.”  And this guy’s supposedly really smart?  Saying “57 States” is a snafu during a long campaign, but the Commander-in-Chief needs to know that while the Obamaprompter is spelling his words correctly, he still has to say them right.  Here’s the clip from yesterday:

Why am I picking on Dear Leader today?  I just downloaded John Legend’s cover of U2’s “Pride (In the Name of Love).” It’s a great cover and worth putting on my iPod, but something happens towards the end I did NOT anticipate (fast forward to 3:40 and let it play), nor was present in the original version of the song I heard!  While I can’t take the song back, I’m going out of my way to pick on Obama for something silly in order to adequately balance out the karma.

A couple of stories that have surfaced today make me wonder if something is brewing in Iran.  First, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced yesterday that Iran would “deliver a harsh blow to the ‘global arrogance’ on this year’s anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.” The anniversary, which takes place on February 11, marks the beginning of the Islamic Jihadist movement in the middle east in 1979.

By itself, this story may not be of too much note.  Ahmadinejad has a history of shooting his mouth off and making statements that consist more bravado than substance.  Yet a second story that I came across made me wonder.  It was learned today that the U.S. is rushing to deploy missile defenses to the region, as well as deploying several warships to the area.  The move is said to  be in response to the failure of negotiations, and also to dissuade Israel from a preemptive strike.

Is it possible that Obama has learned that negotiations with a madman such as Ahmadinejad do not work, and that there is intelligence saying that something is indeed being planned for February 11?  If so, I don’t expect Israel to wait around and do nothing.

It’s too bad it took until now for Obama to realize this.  When the Iranian elections happened in June, the President could have stood up for the freedom movement there.  Instead, he attempted to remain “neutral” which basically meant that he was quietly backing Ahmadinejad.  It has been learned since that it was because at the time, Obama was just beginning negotiations with Ahmadinejad and he didn’t want something like a pesky freedom movement to mess up those negotiations.

In any case, I hope that Ahmadinejad’s threat is all talk and no action.  The last thing this world needs is another terrorist attack man-made disaster which could lead to a third world war.  If something does happen, however, I sincerely hope that, all partisanship aside, our President is up to the task of defending this nation.

I didn’t like it.

Pretty succinct, huh?!

Aside from the obvious liberal crap and fake platitudes, here’s what I really didn’t like:  Obama’s Chavez-like qualities shown through a few times last night.  The way he immaturely called out the Supreme Court with a poor, populist, and inaccurate argument, knowing they couldn’t respond lest Joe Wilson-like “You Lie” sound-bytes canvas the airwaves at SCOTUS’ expense was a new low. Instead of being the new Joe Wilson, Justice Alito gave his best impression.

Also, when the Republicans laughed (I was laughing too by the way) over the climate change dribble, Obama looked mad at them — as if scolding them for being so unenlightened.  In that moment I still heard echoes of the typical Liberal notion that “getting along” or “bipartisanship” simply means agreeing with and/or capitulating to Liberals.  Actually, I had that sense many times last night.

Truthfully, I got the impression that the entire 70-minute speech could have been summed up easily:

“OK, maybe I wasn’t clear enough, Jerks (that would be us):  you want this stuff I’ve been shoving in your face this past year.  Even if you don’t know it yet, it’s good for you.  I am The OBAMA.  I have Spoken!”

But Barry loves to hear himself talk.  The whole affair last night was about him telling you that YOU don’t get it and despite what anyone else thinks, he’s going to do what he likes with his lap-dog Congress.  OK, this may be a little geekish, but with Nancy Pelosi getting goosed so often last night and the Dems chiming in to ovate with glee to so many bad and harmful policies, I was reminded of this moment from Star Wars:

OK, maybe a bit much, but last night’s speech was definitely not a politically expedient one, rather it was the speech of a bully doubling down for another round at getting your lunch money.