GLARING: Nearly 75% Of All Afghanistan Casualties During Obama Years

Afghanistan is now a 12 – year war, but despite being in office for just five years, Barack Obama has overseen nearly 75% of all American casualties in the conflict.  And the graph that highlights this statistic is both glaring and jarring.  Syria is not the only part of the world this president has failed miserably to represent the United States…



Total U.S. Combat Deaths in Afghanistan

2001: 5

2002: 30

2003: 31

2004: 49

2005: 94

2006: 87

2007: 111

2008: 151

2009: 303

2010: 497

2011: 494

2012: 294

2013: 91 (From Jan. 1, 2013 to Sept. 10, 2013)


While enduring this pathetic and dangerous president is difficult for all Americans, imagine the strain being put upon the soldiers and their families who are likely counting the days this Hope and Change catastrophe will come to an end…    -UM


In a world gone wrong, America needs a hero…



Following the thrilling action and intrigue of “Mac Walker’s Benghazi”,   D.W. Ulsterman takes fans of the Mac Walker series on another intense, action-packed ride. In “Mac Walker’s Betrayal”, government gun for hire Mac Walker returns to the United States only to discover that not only his own life, but his country’s very existence, are under attack by powerful global forces intent on destroying any and all who oppose them.

“D.W. Ulsterman is THE break-out writer of 2013!” -BIG TEXAS    LINK




225 days ago by in News | You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
About the

Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. -G. Washington

31 Comments to GLARING: Nearly 75% Of All Afghanistan Casualties During Obama Years
    • Randall
    • …UM, you’re going to get attacked or DOS’d for publishing the casualty stats…

      Remembering 9/11, we should keep in mind that President Obama is supporting, funding, arming, and handing over entire states and peoples to the Muslim Brotherhood, the ideological architects of modern jihad. By virtue of his office and the respect it (normally) commands, he has done more to set back secular governance in the Middle East than any singular person could have over the last three years. The same people who consider America their number one enemy, who see no distinction between men, women, or child, nor between soldier and civilian, would be the beneficiaries of any American air strike against Bashar al-Assad. What would blossom in the Middle East if Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, and Syria all went Brotherhood? Undoubtedly a modern Nazi state, awash in narcotics profits, that ethnically cleansed their lands of Christians and Jews, while leveraging terrorism for profit.

    • VTX
    • WND is reporting that a report from our own military blames the Sarin use on the rebels. That’s interesting.

      No wonder our military wasn’t called in to help in Benghazi: the military would have exposed the Private War of certain CIA officials. This should get some light in coming days.

      “in a classified document just obtained by WND, the U.S. military confirms that sarin was confiscated earlier this year from members of the Jabhat al-Nusra Front, the most influential of the rebel Islamists fighting in Syria.

      This is breathtaking; it’s almost a declaration of separation. You can decide for yourself what that means, but I can’t sleep because of the ramifications. There will be changes in coming days that should not really be unexpected – Washington is shaken. The motorcycle rally certainly had an effect – but that’s a small protest compared to what’s coming, and Washingon had better be ready to remove people in high places with the things that are likely to appear.

      Our Servicemen and women aren’t disposable tissues to wipe with and throw away. Military families hate the administration in a way that the Princess can barely understand – he’s surrounded by people who keep his backside shiny with lipstick and tell him tales of Brave Barack the Conqueror and Guy Everybody Likes.

      The dead in Afghanistan are rising; the rules the Brotherhood set in place killed them and their families will not be silenced by drunken Congressmen who disrespect the men in uniform as much as the Princess and the Muleskin Brotherhood.

      The dead in Afghanistan are rising. They have names and stories to tell.

      • E.A.B.
      • Jabhat al-Nusra is a creation of the Assad regime. They exist to sow division within the Syrian rebellion, and to frame the Syrian rebels for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

        These are the same al-Qaeda fighters Assad protected and refused to hand over during the Iraq War.

        This WND article provides support: “The documentation that the U.N. received from the Russians indicated specifically that the sarin gas was supplied to Sunni foreign fighters by a Saddam-era general working under the outlawed Iraqi Baath party leader, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri.”

        Al-Douri is a Baathist–just like Assad. During the Iraq War, he largely managed the Sunni insurgency–with Assad’s approval–from a hiding place in Syria.

        In case anyone missed the point: JABHAT AL-NURSA GOT THE SARIN FROM ONE OF ASSAD’S ALLIES.

        Why would Assad’s allies supply chemical weapons to Assad’s enemies?

        There’s more: Abu Musab al-Suri, an influential jihadist leader captured in Pakistan and later renditioned to Syria, was released by the Assad regime in late 2011–just as the Free Syrian Army had begun winning some military victories.

        Why would Assad release a wanted jihadist in the opening stages of the Syrian rebellion?

        Earlier this year, Jabhat al-Nusra fighters assassinated Abu Bassir al-Jeblawi, a key figure in the Free Syrian Army.

        Jabhat al-Nusra all OPPOSES outside intervention in the Syrian Civil War.

        To sum up: Jabhat al-Nusra is supplied by an Assad ally, one of their top strategists was released by Assad early in the rebellion, they have been known to assassinate rebel leaders, and they share Assad’s view on American intervention.

        The conclusion is obvious: ASSAD AND JABHAT AL-NUSRA ARE ON THE SAME SIDE.

        And it is these Assad-backed faux-rebels who are going around the country kidnapping Westerners, conducting mass executions, massacring civilians, burning churches, using chemical weapons, and altogether doing everything they possibly can to discredit the Syrian rebellion.

    • VTX
    • The story also shows that there is a difference between Military Intal and the CIA under preswent management. Which one is trustworthy?

      Put it this way: Military Intel didn’t offer the Benghazi story.

      • E.A.B.
      • How thoughtful of Putin to give us a heads up…

        …Like hell!

        This article is exactly in line with what I’ve been saying about Putin’s intentions lately.

        Putin wants to rewrite the ending of the Cold War by making America second to Russia. THAT is why Putin disagrees with “American expectionlism”–he believes in American SUBSERVIENCE TO RUSSIA instead.

        Putin’s direct appeal to the American people is another aspect of his plan. He wants to manipulate American public opinion and trust so that HE can be the primary policy-maker for America.

        I am absolutely STUNNED at the amount of credibility you people are placing in a KGB MAN.

        • bill o'rights
        • No.

          For those of us who have studied Marxism, “American Exceptionalism” is an American Marxist buzzword, and has been since at least the twenties. There have been any number of academic papers on the subject. The general theme is that “American Exceptionalism” is what prevents a Marxist revolution from occurring here.

          So, to trained eyes and ears, the term “American Exceptionalism” pops out like a sore thumb, and it’s absolutely no coincidence that Putin is using it.

          He is suggesting, in the context of a Syrian attack, that Mr. Obama is purposefully decimating American power and influence, exceptionalism, because he is a Marxist.

          This speaks to what I mentioned in another thread–that attacking Syria would lead to a pyrrhic victory or worse.

          • E.A.B.
          • Obviously you didn’t read Putin’s article before spouting off in a knee-jerk reaction.

            Putin wrote AGAINST the concept of American exceptionalism.

            • bill o'rights
            • Yup.

              Once a Stalinist, always a Stalinist.

              It’s Trotskyists vs. Stalinists.

              Putin doesn’t want to rule the U.S. (yet), he just doesn’t want the Trotskyists to create WIII.

              I think he knows how Americans would respond to his comments at face value, but he must be a bit disappointed that his adversaries are so dumbed down that they can’t comprehend his overly-obvious underlying message.

    • AmericaTheBeautiful
    • Must read…from the American Thinker…I would add…that journalists must be made to pay. I am not so certain we shouldn’t try to stop what is coming…

      Three-and-a-half More Years of Obama!
      By J.R. Dunn

      So the Syria “crisis” is reaching its culmination. Syria’s WMD’s are likely to be placed under the control of its patron, Russia, perhaps even with the cooperation of other disinterested, responsible states such as Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. The world’s only superpower, for its part, will loiter on the curb outside, asking hurried questions while the big boys come and go, stepping aside quickly to avoid being shoved into the gutter by their bodyguards.
      This situation is the sole handiwork of Mr. Barack H. Obama, successor in office to Washington, Lincoln, Truman, and Reagan. Pondering the better part of a day, I can think of no previous episode to compare it with. It has similarities to the isolationism of the 1920s, with the United States reduced to irrelevance on the global fringes, but that was a deliberate result of policy, while this… this product of ineptness coupled with ideology, is something you can scarcely put a name to.

      There are three-and-a-half years of agony lying ahead. It won’t be pleasant, but there is a saving grace. Barack Obama and his childishness, incompetence, and fanatical fixation on dead political ideas constitute the apotheosis of a longer-term conundrum, that of a liberal/left that has infiltrated this country’s institutions to a point that state power and interference with individual liberties increases steadily no matter who is in office.

      Obama offers us a chance to reject all that decisively. I want every single train of events set in motion by Obama, his administration, and his supporters, down to the last halfwit college undergrad, to play out in full. I want every disaster that fool and his parade of twitches have triggered to blossom in bleak completion. I want to see all their trains collide, all their ships sink, all their airships burnt to cinders.

      We’re talking tragedy and retribution, in the absolute Greek sense — the Furies howling at midnight. Maybe that’s what it takes to cleanse this nation of this doctrinal pestilence. I want to see every Row A voter reduced to remorse. I want to see their noses rubbed in it. I want to hear each victim of this regime cry out to heaven for vengeance. If all this comes to pass, we may even see Democrats, fearful for their own political hides, wanting to be rid of him.
      But if Obama were impeached, none of this would happen. Instead the focus would shift to Congress and the GOP, who then would be blamed for everything that occurs, no matter who — likely Smilin’ Joe Biden — inhabits the Oval Office. When the disasters come — and they will (most of them are on track at this moment and can’t be turned around except through drastic action which Obama and all other visible Democrats are incapable of) — they will be dumped into the laps of the Republicans. No other group in modern history has proven more adept at shifting blame than the liberal left, just as no other political party has proven more apt to stumble into the spotlight at the worst possible moment than the GOP.

      Looking back from our fine vantage point here at the edge of the Abyss, we can trace the path clearly. Despite popular belief, the New Deal solved nothing. There was a second crash — one that makes none of the history textbooks — in October 1937 that wiped out all gains made in the previous four years and left unemployment higher than it had been when FDR entered office. By January 1938, Roosevelt was reduced to pleading with his advisors “Can no one tell me what to do?” Nobody could, and the country continued its downward spiral.

      It was saved by Adolf Hitler, who in March annexed Austria, rolling into Vienna behind a spearhead of Panzers. This wakeup call revealed that war was inevitable, and the tariff barriers that had prevented international economic recovery fell as the nations of Europe scrambled to purchase weaponry and supplies. In the U.S., plants reopened (despite an insane attempt — by the GOP, no less — to stifle this using the Neutrality Act), industry began to gain ground, and by 1940 the U.S. was back on its feet.

      Roosevelt found his sweet spot in leading the Allied coalition to victory, something nobody would have believed him capable of even ten years earlier. The success of FDR the Warlord covered the failure of his economic policies. The New Deal became a retroactive success due to WW II. By this means, the legend of liberal triumph entered American consciousness.

      Skipping over Harry Truman, the last practical Democratic president, and John F. Kennedy, the last conservative Democratic president, we come to Lyndon Johnson. LBJ was a pure ideologue, a product of the New Deal who believed its dogma (which, not coincidentally, fitted his paternalistic, controlling persona to near perfection) implicitly. Amid the reaction to JFK’s murder, LBJ was able to pass a barge load of ultraliberal programs that would never have seen a vote under ordinary circumstances.: Medicare, Medicaid, the War on Poverty, all comprising what he called his “Great Society”. Thanks to Keynesian financing, LBJ managed to suck the life out of the 1960s boom in little more than four years, leaving the nation headed for economic ruin. Along with the Vietnam War and his fumbling of the racial question, this left him as one of the most despised presidents of the century. He abdicated office in 1968, having served only one and a third terms.

      But Richard M. Nixon effectively extended Johnson’s term in office, continuing his disastrous economic policies (“We are all Keynesians now.”), and putting into effect whatever wild-eyed liberal programs Johnson had missed, including affirmative action and establishing the Environmental Protection Agency. (Tom Wicker, ultraliberal New York Times reporter, later wrote a book examining Nixon’s record under the title One of Us).

      Elected as a reform candidate in the wake of Watergate, Jimmy Carter proved so incompetent that his ideology scarcely mattered (though he was nearly as much as New Deal liberal as LBJ).

      Reagan, of course, turned the country around in short order with his commonsense conservative reforms carried out in the teeth of opposition from both liberals and his own party. This set the stage for Bush the Elder, whose liberal tendencies were strong enough to nearly derail the Reagan reforms (“I guess I f***** up in 1980,” Reagan responded). Bush allowed himself to be pressured into raising taxes just as the economy hit a soft patch following the dramatic 1980s expansion. The resulting shallow recession wrecked his reelection effort despite his personal popularity.

      As for Bill Clinton, he began his first term as a typical New Left clown, out to “tame” Wall Street, and inevitably throw the country back onto the skids. (It was none other than Al Gore who put a stop to this, to give credit where it’s due). At the end of that term, Clinton shifted right under pressure from Newt Gingrich’s GOP Congress along with the guidance of political operative Dick Morris. This bought him a second term, which he spent chasing women, eating cheeseburgers, and paying the consequences. The country went its own way regardless.

      Despite distinct signs of the family liberalism, George W. Bush governed well enough to restore prosperity after a brief recession bequeathed to him by Clinton. His quick action in 2008 was instrumental in saving the economy from complete collapse (the Obama administration added nothing but far huger piles of cash). Then came Obama.
      What we see clearly from this record is that American liberals have always managed to avoid responsibility. Global war saved Roosevelt and established the myth of triumphant New Deal liberalism. None of the liberal presidents thereafter — excepting Clinton — served two full terms, leaving the consequences of their actions – and the blame — to be borne by their Republican successors. Clinton avoided this only by shifting to the right. Add to this the fact that several GOP presidents — Nixon and the Bushes — stumbled along in a “center” that was actually far to the left, muddying the political record considerably, and it’s evident how the narrative has been tilted leftward.

      Liberals have never had to pay the piper. They have never had to face their failures or come up with explanations for what went wrong. Neither Johnson nor Carter served second terms in which their errors would have become manifest. Instead, Nixon and Reagan had to bear the responsibility. And of course, the GOP has never made a point of this.

      But now we have Obama. The first true progressive to achieve a second term since FDR. There’s no “triangulation” needed by the man who knows everything, and no war, it seems, to pull him out of this swamp. Obama will have to take full responsibility for his policies. He will have to stand in the dock, and with him, for the first time in seventy years, liberalism as a whole.

      Obama is less lucky than FDR, less competent than Jimmy Carter, and less flexible than Bill Clinton. With Obama, all the failures of liberalism are coming to a head. He has put more liberal policies into effect in a shorter period than any other president, but thanks to his unique combination of ineptness, ignorance, inexperience, and arrogance, every last one of them is doomed. All of them are failing as we watch. His economic policies have repeated the failures of FDR’s New Deal, with worse to come. His health care “reform” is in a state of collapse before it has even started. His stewardship of race relations has returned the country to a state of nearly open hostility and panic not seen since 1968. His Hallmark card foreign policy has killed tens of thousands overseas and will almost inevitably lead to the deaths of millions, as did the policies of Jimmy Carter in countries as unrelated as Nicaragua, Iran, Ethiopia, and Cambodia.

      Do we really want to give him an out? Do we want to release him to a well-paying sinecure position to become the black Jimmy Carter, an international pest and embarrassment? Do we want to allow the liberal left to slide one more time? To scamper out of the line of fire only to return to mock and sabotage the efforts of better men to clean up the heartbreaking mess they left behind, as they did in the early 1970s, the Reagan 80s, the Bush Oughts? Do we want to see them pop back up in 2020 or 24 with the same nonsense programs given different names and the same insults and attacks for their opponents exhausted and in despair at attempting to repair what can no longer be repaired?

      I say no. I prefer that we drink this cup to the dregs, take this road to its lonely end. The liberals need to undergo the whipping that they have dodged for over seven decades. The voters of this country, who have treated politics like a reality series, need to be backhanded by the world as it exists. We require a rude awakening. This country’s pols, both left and right, need to be overwhelmed with worry as to what the next day will bring. The people of this country need to be buried up to their necks in the results of their own infantilism. All the fantasy castles need to be demolished to the last stone. Liberalism must be discredited and humiliated, its adherents defeated and dispersed. The leader of the whole circus must be tormented to the human limit and beyond, forced to break down in front of the cameras as he begs for help that will not come.

      I am not talking about apocalypse. I am talking about shock therapy. There are dreadful days to come, and they are locked in. We have another recession on its way, perhaps even a stagflation on the 1970s model, which swallowed the entire decade. Having taken in Obama’s disgraceful performance as regards Syria, our enemies will now make a move: Russia, China, and Iran, and possibly all three at once. We will not win this round. We have a national security system that is run by wannabe trannies and later-day beatniks. We are operating under the delusion that major military units can be led in battle by gays, transvestites, and what have you. We have convinced ourselves that the 21st-century world can be mastered by weapons purchased in the 1980s. We have sown the wind. We will reap the whirlwind.

      We have got it coming. But at the same time, the seeds of resurrection are evident. As I have said elsewhere, I am a disciple of Adam Smith – “There is a lot of ruin in a nation.” But we cannot recover in any meaningful sense as long as the same processes are allowed to continue; as long as any cheap demagogue can trot around mouthing the same old slogans and be taken seriously.

      Liberalism has outlived its time. Obama is in the process of destroying it. Let it come down.

      • truthandjustice
      • Yes, I’ve often thought that. We’ve reached the point where we have too many who have no understanding about the great destructive folly of liberalism, communism, Marxism, etc. & no appreciation or understanding of the necessary principles that this country was founded on. How else will this generation know & end the continuation – so many do not have a clue about that like the older/wiseer ones. And human nature is such that one has to experience the disasters and sufferings in order to wake up. They won’t listen to truth via communicatons.
        So, in my opinion, that is what God thinks too – and because of His great love and justice, this has to happen – but hopefully to wake up enough to come back to Him and do all the hard work and decisions to restore, with His necessary help this great nation we once were.

    • VTX
    • ATB,
      Interesting article. Diana West’s book on the Commie control over our government apparently (haven’t read it yet) has rattled a lot of cages. Looks like both authors have a similar viewpoint. A further analysis of the GOP, however, shows that it’s been a willing dupe – or at least strategically inept, and instead of a meritocracy in the party, it’s had a “next-in-line” method of choosing leaders.

      Ford was the nominee who was so blindingly incompetent, he couldn’t find Poland on a map. Nor could he discern what was apparent to anyone with 80 IQ: the Soviets owned Eastern Europe. The debates showed that the GOP was more into succession-by-seniority than quality.

      In defense of HW, he was medically attenuated. Never should have run the second time. And John Sununu used his condition to make waffles out of his policy. But again, nominee by “who is next” was the rule.

      Same with the Senator from Kansas, who was next in line, but not first in competence.

      Dubya was like Reagan in one way: he had to fight his way through McLame. He had interests behind him, as did McLame – as they all do – but his were more powerful. They were, as WHI says, streetfighters and kneecappers. They worked for Romney, too, but suddenly stopped fighting once the competition in the party was over. They were either replaced or they were silenced – or they were saboteurs.

      The Demonrats, however, had thrills up their legs for George McGovern – after the Chitcago branch killed Bobby Kennedy – and they ensured that Nixon would win in ’72. In ’68, Humphrey lost because he backed the foreign policy of LBJ – a mistake Hillary is already making.

      I see the Establishmen Republicans as being guilty of letting things get where they are – they could have chosen energetic, enthusiastic and competent leaders, but they chose to reward the first-in-line. We all suffered as a result.

      And now this:

      While Dems want to put us under Communism, Repubs want to make us into a state that looks like Mexico – along with people who know how to be good serfs in their feudal regime. Neither one wants to see the present level of freedom – such as it is – continue to exist.

    • AmericaTheBeautiful
    • Bill O…others even more so…

      Barack Obama “For the Children”…do we have another Hitler in our White House…


      OBAMA, and his concern, his mention of “for the children” …Is a DIRTY JOKE!

      Obama has supported the AlQaeda rebels to overthrow Assad…because Qater and the Saudi’s want their pipeline…Obama has done the bidding of the IslamoFascist’s…the Muslim Brotherhood…..IMPEACH and IMPRISON

      Report: Children Gassed In Syria Kidnapped By ‘Rebels’ Weeks Earlier

      The horrifying pictures of dead children being used by the Obama administration to justify an attack on Syria, with the claim that the Assad regime carried out the chemical attacks that killed those children, while emotionally heartbreaking, do not tell the story of those children and do not tell you the main point the Obama administration is trying to coverup.

      Those children were kidnapped over a week earlier, before they were slaughtered……. by the Obama backed Syrian rebels.

      August 11, 2013 a report discussed the rebels attacking the Latakia village and Sheikh Mohammed Reda Hatem, an Alawite religious leader in Latakia said ”Until now 150 Alawites from the villages have been kidnapped. There are women and children among them. We have lost all contact with them.”

      Some of those children were found less than two weeks later, in Ghouta, photos below:

      The wide distribution of satellite channel images of victims allowed Alawite families near Latakia to recognize their children who had been abducted two weeks prior by the “rebels.” This identification was long in coming because there are few survivors of the massacre by the allies of the United States, the United Kingdom and France in loyalist villages where more than a thousand bodies of civilians were discovered in mass graves.

      The children do not correspond to a sample of the population: they are all almost of the same age and have light hair. They are not accompanied by their grieving families.

      They are in fact children who were abducted by jihadists two weeks before in Alawite villages in the surroundings of Latakia, 200km away from Ghouta.

      Barack Obama’s narrative is unraveling as the truth of who murdered these children is being exposed.
      The Obama backed Syrian rebels are slaughtering these children, pretending it was Assad that did it, so Obama can claim justification in attacking the Assad regime.

      • E.A.B.
      • See my comment above.

        The “rebels” engaged in various war crimes, such as Jabhat al-Nusra, are in fact puppets of the Assad regime. Assadist groups are going around Syria burning churches and killing children, pretending they are “rebels.”

        Latakia is an Assad stronghold. A mass kidnapping could not have taken place in Latakia without the knowledge and approval of the Assad regime.

        Those of you crying “false flag” are looking in the wrong place.

    • VTX
    • E.A.B.
      I guess that the ones who came through Turkey with Sarin were all from Syria, too – (and Turkey wants Assad out.) And the Saudi Intel – who delivered the same – oh, that’s right, Saudi Arabia is siding with the rebels!

      Gee. One would think your tinfoil hat needs a tiedown. You’re as delusional as the Princess and her little Kerry.

    • VTX
    • Looks like Assad’s measured the Princess for a new set of slippers. That’s no reason to celebrate:

      For this, I’d send a missile straight downo the dumbass’ chimney – like Ronnie did Ghaddafi. But that won’t happen. Regardless, Putin had better call off his boy, or Americans are suddenly going to be ready to back action against his blue-eyed buddy, who is playing twice-too cute. Putin, better put a leash on the dope.

      And EAB? If the “rebels” really are from Assad, wouldn’t it be a good idea to blow the shit out of them, first? That’s doable – especially since they were the ones using the gas (if it was gas and not Jim Jones KoolAid.)

      First thing first: tell Kerry to STFU; tell McLame and Wimsy the same, and get some of the Bush boys to do the heavy lifting. Think Assad would press his luck then?

      I didn’t think so, either.

      Now we need a serious plan with a serious end-game – a set of expectations. Asshat Assad has gotten the wrong message.

      • E.A.B.
      • I would have no problem with striking both Assad and Assadist faux-rebels such as Jabhat al-Nusra.

        You complain that Assad has gotten the wrong message? Well you and others like you who support the Obama policy of inaction are the ones who sent that very message. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

        Putin feels no need to put anyone on a leash now that America has backed down. As far as he’s concerned it’s his world now.

    • VTX
    • EAB,

      If what you say is true, why didn’t we just blast the crap out of al Nusra to begin with? We could have done that, and nobody would have batted an eye. Then the resistance could go back to being the SYRIAN resistance, instead of a bunch of Islamic extremist imports.

      Problem solved. Why do I say “problem solved?”
      Because if they WERE Asshat’s, he would be angered instead of relieved.

      Killing the extreme elements should have been our plan to begin with – no matter who sent them. Military Intel confirms what Brennan’s jihadists fail to appreciate Syria has weapons-grade; the Sarin used was terror-grade.

      You tired of losin’ yet?

      • E.A.B.
      • Jabhat al-Nusra hadn’t ammassed much power in the beginning. It’s been mainly within the past year that they have gained most of their manpower and reputation for viciousness.

        It would have been a waste of a cruise missile.

        Things have changed since then–thanks to Obama’s policy of NONINTERVENTIONISM.

    • VTX
    • EAB,
      Non-interventionism? You mean Brennan’s PRIVATE EFFING WAR, doncha? Reports have been going round for a long time about that – and Benghazi is where he got his willy trapped in a thicket.

      The Princess is fully intentional about intervention: supporting JIHADISTS of the Salafist breed. You know what they are? They’re the type run from Riyahd; they’re the ones who want total world domination – they’re ten times the pestilence that the Shiites are. hell, the Shiites are, by comparison, a local tribe (albeit with grandiose ambition.) You know all those maddrasses around the planet? They’re all the same ones: the ones that call Christians and Jews “pigs and dogs.” Brennan’s type and the Princess’ type: Sunni blood.

      This could have been avoided on at least half a dozen junctures, but the arrogance and incompetence of the Princess and her staff made it impossible: there never was a realistic assessment on the ground. Not to mention the dealings in Benghazi – an exercise in arrogance if there ever was one.

      If Brennan is so eager for his people to talk, maybe he should tell us a few things:

      1. Who stopped aid from being sent, and why.
      2. Why the Ambassador was targetted
      3. Who concocted the bullshit story.

      Fact is, a good cleanup doesn’t mean effing up the storyline. You just don’t do that. Furthermore, you don’t do a cleanup with the FBI waiting until the area is totally compromised – not unless you want everyone in the neighborhood to know what was happening. And they do. Friends and foes.

      Whether this was a hostage-trade setup or not, it still all leads to Syria. Go ahead and resign and stop putting up this crap.

      Finally, only a dope thinks intervention is about cruise missiles. Try reading some Sun Tzu quotes – the one about the best victory being the one not fought, compared to the 100 that were fought and won. And the parts about Intel being useful for that end.

      Good Intel prevents more wars more than it starts, and GOOD Intel prepares the ground if fighting is going to be an eventuality. That is, GOOD Intel. Right now, under this administration? We’re lacking.

      • E.A.B.
      • Yes, Obama’s policy is one of noninterventionism. The same policy you advocate.

        Let’s look at Obama’s track record:
        *Refused to speak out against Iran’s repression of protesters
        *Had to be dragged kicking and screaming into killing bin Laden
        *Had to be dragged kicking and screaming into protecting civilians from Ghadafi
        *Still hasn’t brought the Benghazi killers to justice after over a year
        *Refuses to strike Syria while pretending to want to do it
        *Refuses to strike Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities

        Obama is a guy whose foreign policy is almost as do-nothing oriented as that advocated by Ron Paul.

        Don’t whine. You are only getting what you asked for.

    • bill o'rights
    • I am going to re-post my response to E.A.B., because I think it’s ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL that everyone understand what Mr. Putin is trying to communicate with his op-ed…

      For those of us who have studied Marxism, “American Exceptionalism” is an American Marxist buzzword, and has been since at least the twenties. There have been any number of academic papers on the subject. The general theme is that “American Exceptionalism” is what prevents a Marxist revolution from occurring here.

      So, to trained eyes and ears, the term “American Exceptionalism” pops out like a sore thumb, and it’s absolutely no coincidence that Putin is using it.

      He is suggesting, in the context of a Syrian attack, that Mr. Obama is purposefully decimating American power and influence, exceptionalism, because he is a Marxist.

      This speaks to what I mentioned in another thread–that attacking Syria would lead to a pyrrhic victory or worse.

      • E.A.B.
      • I am going to repeat my point:

        Putin was writing AGAINST American exceptionalism in his article. He (like Obama) says it’s dangerous for Americans to believe we are exceptional. Neither believe in American exceptionalism; both are advocates of American subservience.

        Apparently you are just predisposed to idolize KGB man Putin and turn everything he writes into heroically good advice.

    • VTX
    • Bill’O,
      Relative to the topic and related topics, you and ATB (and others) have been right about globalism – there are a few things that have spiked the curve lately, indicating that things are speeding up:

      -The pope declaring himself a universalist, denying Christ and ignoring sin.
      -Putin pumping the UN, eschewing nationalism (though he still is a nationalist)
      -al Qaeda revealing that they want to bleed us with terrorim, not defeat us militarily.

      The way the Princess is defeating us militarily is to hobble our army. Cause (not let) more men and women to die; cause (not let) our Chaplains to quit in disgust; cause (not let) our men understand that the COC hates their guts…well, there you have it. Teh military has been subverted morally.

      The Syrian trap is also a fiscal tar baby – no matter if the Salafists claim they’ll pay for the operation-engagement-war. The initial cost is never the full cost. Their intent is to have us fight under their banner (and to submit our soldiers to their religion.) Mostly it’s a trap.

      That’s the scheme: cut the budget, and make our Defenders do more with less. That’s why more soldiers are dying – and it isn’t accidental.

      • bill o'rights

        I wonder why E.A.B. does not recognize Syria for what it is? Hmmm.

        Pretty obvious geopolitical suicide.

        Afraid to ‘look’ weak?

        Let us not forget that it is the Obama administration that created this whole scenario, from start to finish.

        Marxists (or Marxo-Muslims, in this case) NEARLY ALWAYS create dialectical scenarios wherein they achieve their objectives, win or lose. War in Syria or no war, they achieve their objective of weakening the United States. We are left with the option of supporting the lesser of two evils.

        Which brings me to another point…

        Where do the journalists get off, suggesting that the administration lacks a ‘clear’ foreign policy initiative?

        There is ALWAYS a clear foreign policy initiative, it just isn’t clear to them, because they refuse to believe that their Fried Chicken Mullah is a Marxist @55hole.

Leave A Response

* Required