We waited three months for THIS? Gen. Stanley McChrystal recognized that the only way to make headway in the Afghan war – a war President Obama himself called “a war of necessity” before he stopped calling it a war at all and then returned to doing so tonight – was to bring 40,000 more troops to the front. So McChrystal put in the additional troops request.

Instead of responding, Obama mulled things over. And mulled things over some more. He held a National Security Council meeting. And then another.

Days passed. Obama attended more “man-made disaster” briefings (nine in total) as American soldiers were killed. He hemmed and hawed when anyone asked what was taking him so long to make a decision. The weeks trickled by and our soldiers – hampered by rules of engagement seemingly designed to give the enemy an edge – held their own and hoped for the requested reinforcements.

Meanwhile, Obama lost the Chicago Olympics bid. He won a Nobel Prize. He held a White House state dinner in a tent (the cost to taxpayers for that soiree is still unknown).

And McChrystal and the troops waited as Obama mused some more and asked the country not to rush to judgment on the Ft. Hood Massacre and played endless rounds of golf.

Finally, tonight, the president responded to McChrystal’s request. He did so first by announcing a pullout timeline before getting to the number of additional troops he would send over.

Gen. McChrystal requested at least 40,000 additional soldiers. That request was delivered to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on August 30^th. Tonight, Obama committed to 30,000 troops over the nest six to eight months.

But the president with his rhetoric sent the enemy a gift of hope instead of fear: by mentioning a timeline for withdrawal before getting to any talk of increasing the American presence in Afghanistan, he in effect told al Qaeda and the Taliban that if they bear with us until July 2011, we’ll be out of their turbans, whether we’ve finished the job there or not.

Setting aside any talk of a surge or timeline, perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Obama’s speech is that he used it to sell his own interests. It’s no stretch to call him our most media-exposed president. He knows how to work a crowd, the liberal press and a teleprompter. Unfortunately, put him in front of an audience – especially one with cameras in the house – and he can’t stop his endless campaigning.

So Obama used his speech to slam George W. Bush and D1ck Cheney again by bringing up Iraq and whether that war was handled well or not. He used his speech to tell us that Islam “is one of the world’s great religions.” He reminded us that he’s a pacifist. (To reiterate: he talked about withdrawal before he talked about a surge.) He reminded us that America is all about human rights and that Gitmo had to be closed. And just in case you didn’t get his Muslim word embrace the first time, he told us that by fighting in Afghanistan, our nation affirms its commitment to the Muslim world.

Obama should have dazzled tonight. Instead, for all his somber look and tone, he came off looking like a huckster trying to pitch a tired bag of tricks.

Even when he did talk about the goals of the war remaining the same – “to disrupt, dismantle and defend al Qaeda in Afghanistan” – he didn’t get into specifics. And he seemed more concerned about the monetary cost of the war than the human cost.

In the end, Obama’s pacifist and withdrawal talk made him come off sounding weak. Indeed, his speech only affirms that Vice President D1ck Cheney assesses Obama correctly in his latest Politico interview:

“Here’s a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing,” Cheney said. “I think our adversaries — especially when that’s preceded by a deep bow ... — see that as a sign of weakness.” (December 1, 2009, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30024.html)

Obama’s preference for an Afghan exit strategy over a victory is evident. Certainly al Qaeda and the Taliban read the president as weak before tonight’s speech. Nothing Obama said tonight will change their opinion of him. All that was missing was a bow.

By Kelly L. Goodridge and Oscar De Los Santos

OK would like to send out a big thank you to our troops serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and throughout the world.  We’re thankful for these men and women who fight for our freedom.  We hoped that Obama would also express his gratitude, but he used his Thanksgiving Eve speech to send out a Haijj message to Muslims around the world.

In fact, in spite – and in some cases, because – of Barack Obama’s bad- and non-decision-making, there are at least eleven other reasons to be thankful on this holiday.  With that in mind, here’s our list of Top Reasons to Be Thankful on Thanksgiving 2009:

12. We still have private health insurance if we buy it – and aren’t yet thrown into jail if we elect not to buy it.

11. Illegal immigrants are still illegal and haven’t been given an umbrella pass into the fold without procedure.

10. As a result of the Ft. Hood massacre, we’re more aware of the extent to which political correctness has run amok and hamstrung our military and other law enforcement agencies.

9. The global warming hoax is being exposed for what it is: a hoax.

8. The liberal media continues to out itself as a hypocritical dying entity.  (The latest over-the-top examples: Chris Mathews stressing that it’s not a crime to E-mail al-Qaeda; The New York Times suddenly going sanctimonious and declaring it would not publish the hacked global warming E-mails because the newspaper doesn’t publish content that wasn’t meant for the public eye.  Is The Gray Lady suffering sudden memory loss?  What about the E-mails in Sarah Palin’s hacked mailbox, posts to which they provided a link?  What about The Pentagon Papers?)

7. We still have the freedom of speech.

6. We still have the right to bear arms.

5. We still have the right to practice the religion of our choice.

4. We’re Natural Born Citizens of this great country – and can prove it if called upon to do so.

3. We have a great circle of friends and fellow conservatives with whom we touch base at OK, We’re Right and Free Republic.

2. Our law enforcement officers and firefighters, who work hard to keep us safe each day.

1. Our troops, fighting for America’s freedom, short in number, thanks to Obama's ongoing procrastinations, but long in resolve, love of country and spiritual strength.

It’s been over two months since General McChrystal, our top commander in Afghanistan, put out the call for more troops.  President Barack Hussein Obama continues to hem and haw and hold endless meetings to discuss the issue.  Maybe he’s too busy having parties with J-Lo and friends, compiling his enemies list, pushing healthcare, playing B ball and campaigning for fellow Dems to worry about such trivialities as warfare.  Meanwhile, things get worse abroad and more of our soldiers are paying the highest of price for an indecisive commander-in-chief.

Obama’s stalling is a perfect example of his methodology: vacillate and ignore a problem or fixate on discussion rather than action.  It’s inertia vs. movement.

President George W. Bush was all about action and movement.  People denigrated his cowboy diplomacy but he acted in the best interests of his country and those at risk.

Obama is standing still. He’s acting as if he were posing for an oil painting while America suffers.  He seems more interested in his celebrity status than the people he was elected to govern and protect.

When we do see Obama move, it’s to advance his personal legacy.  Consider that he still claims to have put an end to torture in the context of military interrogations when we never advocated it.  Consider that he continues to work to close Gitmo and bring terrorists to American soil.  (The Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are under attack on a daily basis with Obama and his Marxist and Mao-loving camp, even as known terrorists will be given constitutional rights and tried in American courts.  OK imagines that so much of the information that could convict the terrorists will need to be omitted during their trials due to national security.  In other words, it's hard to feel confident that justice will be served.)

And Obama promises to make Cap and Trade a reality.  This on the heels of growing evidence that Al Gore's global warming is a hoax (and a profitable one that’s made the ex-vice president rich in spite of thousands of scientists who counter the issue and want to debate Gore on the issue; he refuses. He even had a reporter’s microphone cut when the questions concerning discrepancies in An Inconvenient Truth grew too warm and inconvenient).

Moreover, Obama promises to make national healthcare come to pass.  This is yet another power grab designed to dismantle the greatest healthcare system in the world.

In other words, when it comes to radically changing our country – for the worse – Obama hops to the task with a lilt in his step.  But when it comes to directing necessary attention to foreign policy and winning a war, he checks out.

How’s this for cowboy diplomacy:  “the strategic nuclear power of the United States has been so greatly modernized and expanded in the last 1,000 days, by the rapid production and deployment of the most modern missile systems, that any and all potential aggressors are clearly confronted now with the impossibility of strategic victory – and the certainty of total destruction – if by reckless attack they should ever force upon us the necessity of a strategic reply.”

Who spoke those words?  No one, actually – but President John Fitzgerald Kennedy would have, if he had lived long enough to make it to the Dallas Trade Mart the afternoon he was assassinated.  The differences between John Kennedy and Barack Obama – between being a Democrat in the Kennedy era and being a Democrat in the 21^st century – are profound.  JFK spoke often of peace in the world, but he understood the price that had to be paid in order to attain it.  His administration engaged in numerous clandestine activities designed to ensure America’s freedom and safety.  Obama’s vision of a pacifist world, on the other hand, is pure fantasy - a utopian dream.  Ultimately, it’s about ignoring a problem and hoping it goes away, rather than acting to fix it.

Obama’s M.O. also involves using the lamestream media to set up smokescreens and divert attention from a lack of decision on Afghanistan and our country’s most pressing issues.  We hear more about balloon boy hoaxes than about energy bills that will kill our already depleted bank accounts. We hear about Obama’s vow to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military while our soldiers are imperiled abroad.  We hear about how baaaaaaaad FOX News is, how Obama will not grant it any interviews until at least 2010 and how it isn’t a true news facility.  The latter from Obama advisor David Axelrod, who also told ABC that FOX is undeserving of being treated as a true news organization: “the bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we're not going to treat them that way” (Ann Sanner, “White House Continues Attack on Fox News,” October 19, 2009, http://www.gopusa.com/news/2009/october/1019_wh_fox.shtml).

Here’s another line from John Kennedy’s undelivered speech:  “If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help.”

Thankfully, more and more Americans – including many Obama supporters – are getting tired of the endless wordplay. They’re growing exasperated with the stalling and smoke and mirrors.  They comprehend that Obama is more about inaction than action.  The president’s approval rating has hit a new low. Obama's loyalties or lack thereof are drawing attention. Fewer are laughing when the birthers cry out that being a Natural Born Citizen is an important issue for U.S. presidents.  More Americans are questioning why Obama didn't embrace his Muslim root system until after he was elected.

Countless articles, documentaries and films recently heralded the Woodstock Festival’s 40^th anniversary. Few of the retrospectives mentioned the soldiers dying in Vietnam as stoners rocked out in rural New York.

Something similar is happening now. Afghan War Commander General McChrystal requested 40 thousand additional troops weeks ago. Instead of complying, President Barrack Hussein Obama continues to stall even as he attends to matters he deems more important than losing a war.

But Obama must consider the 2016 Olympics his most pressing political matter. He wants the games held in Chicago. So of course, he and First Lady Michelle are jetting off to Copenhagen– in separate planes – to make a personal appeal to the Olympic Committee. Never mind that the cost of Obama alone making the four thousand mile trip aboard Air Force One will set American taxpayers back anywhere from $300K to $500K, each way (Penny Starr, CNS News, September 30,2009, http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54762).   After all, there’s no other way to get in touch with the Olympic Committee except to go meet it face-to-face, right?

The Afghan war should be tops on Obama’s list. Instead, he’s doing anything but making a decision on whether or not to honor General McChrystal’s troop request. That stall is costing us lives. McChrystal admitted on last Sunday’s 60 Minutes that he’s spoken to Obama just once in the past 70 days. Never mind that there’s a chain of command in place and Obama wants McChrystal to communicate with the Pentagon first. The president can do better than have a single direct communiqué with his on-site commander in 70 days. To do otherwise is an insult to McChrystal and every soldier who volunteered to serve his country in any way it deems necessary.

Funny how Obama continues to hedge – and liberals continue to give him a pass – on an Afghan war decision. Remember how the libs crucified President George W. Bush for not taking a firmer stance on Afghanistan? Remember how they vilified W for the troop surge in Iraq, which finally turned things around?

Truth be told, the Iraq surge was a resounding success. And in that fact is the key to Obama’s fudging on a similar Afghan surge. Sure, angering liberals may account for part of the president’s hesitancy, but there’s also this to consider: To give McChrystal the additional troops he requested would be tantamount to admitting that W was right in ordering the Iraq surge.

In fact, George W. Bush was right about a lot of things. He was right about the Iraq surge and he was right about Iran. Recall that Bush was laughed at for treating Iran as a dangerous enemy determined to join the nuclear arms community. Now we’ve learned that Ahmadinejad and company have long been cooking up uranium in hidden sites throughout the country.

W understood what President Ronald Reagan understood all too well: peace is best upheld through strength. Iran wouldn’t be processing nuke fuel and preparing an Israel doomsday bomb if Reagan, George W. Bush and VP Cheney were still in power.

And neither Reagan nor W would be running a fool’s errand to Denmark in order to secure a round of games while our troops are pleading for help.

By Oscar De Los Santos and Kelly L. Goodridge

For years it was all too easy for liberals to find a scapegoat for the world’s ills. In fact, they’re still using the same punching bag now and again. When all else fails, blame George W. Bush. But these days we have a new commander-in-chief, one who addressed the world at the UN today (September 23, 2009) and scolded it for not helping America with its economy and wars.   Of course, if Barack Hussein Obama were honest, he would start shouldering the blame for our rapidly stagnating national state. If anyone is to blame for resurrecting Jimmy Carter’s “malaise,” it’s Dreamboat Obama himself, who has embarked on starry-eyed, dead-end idealist missions that are stripping America of all respect in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Obama used his global platform to warn the world that it had to quell its “almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction” (Matt Spetalnick and Andrew Quinn, “Obama seeks help at U.N., some raise questions,” Reuters, September 23, 2009, http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58M0VN20090923?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=69).

Truly, if there’s anyone at fault for driving us into inaction these days, it’s Obama himself. He’s so obsessed with passing healthcare reform that Americans don’t want, that he’s hurting us by ignoring our immediate need: a troop surge in Afghanistan. He laid out his plan six months ago. It’s a little late to be worrying about cost and strategy, yet he continues to waffle. (Regardless of what excuse he wishes to toss at us, we understand that Obama won’t green-light General McChrystal’s request for 40 thousand more soldiers for fear of losing leftist votes to pass his healthcare bill. McChrystal is the top military commander in Afghanistan. He’s at the source. He knows what he needs to make a difference in an otherwise futile exercise. Obama doesn’t care. In fact, the president had McChrystal’s request muzzled for days in order to embark on another healthcare TV blitz.)

 So obsessed is Obama with moving cap & trade forward, that he’s ignoring the fact that the earth is experiencing a decade of its coolest temperatures. So obsessed is Obama with making nice with the Russians, that he’s thrown Poland and the Czech Republic – and America’s safety – under the bus by abandoning our planned overseas missile defense system in favor of Defense-Lite.

And what did Obama get for making nice with people who hate America? The same thing he got by calling our enemies before calling our allies the morning he took office; the same thing he got for bashing his country while on his international apology tour; the same thing he’s going to get for ordering the Defense Department to radically downscale our nuclear arsenal; the same thing he’s going to get for sharing his dreamboat vision of a world without nuclear bombs: NOTHING.

In fact, rather than getting anything, Obama is still busy ceding the national farm. Consider that during the harsh economic climate the U.S. is weathering, we’re still giving away billions to the very people who would blow us away in a heartbeat, if given the opportunity. Consider that America “is expected to spend about $36.7 billion on its foreign aid budget next year” (William La Jeunesse, “Tracking Your Taxes,” FOX News, September 22, 2009). Lest you think all of the money is designated for humanitarian causes, think again. Here’s an infuriating breakdown of the money that will be doled out, according to FOX News:

• $98 million to persuade Kim Jong-il of North Korea to give up nuclear weapons
• $20 million for political prisoners and political rights in Castro's Cuba
• $6 million to promote civil society in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela
• $500,000 for border security in Muammar al-Qaddafi's Libya
• $26 million to help train police in Evo Morales' Bolivia
• $56 million to support the rule of law and human rights in Vladimir Putin's Russia, arguably one of the world's richest nations

(Source: William La Jeunesse, “Tracking Your Taxes: Sending Billions in Aid to Despots and Wealthy Nations,” FOX News, September 22, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/22/tracking-taxes-sending-billions-aid-despots-wealthy-nations/)

So why shouldn’t NATO and the rest of the world leave America in the lurch? They know someone who is ignoring everything but his own Machiavellian reckless visions is running our country. Michael Savage asserts that Obama is “to the left of most of the dictators in the UN.” As a result, Savage declares, “I’m flabbergasted” (960 WELI radio, September 23, 2009). OK feels the same way.

There was so much talk about a so-called “bridge to nowhere” a short while back. Now we’re a country marching toward nowhere – except perhaps Omega – thanks to a reckless non-leader who duped many into electing him.

By now, most of us have heard about the new Osama bin Laden tape which surfaced. In it, the al-Qaeda mastermind – or a clever imitator – calls President Barack Obama “powerless” to end the Afghan war (“Bin Laden Calls Obama ‘powerless’ in New Tape,” FOX News, September 14, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549780,00.html). Whether the voice actually belongs to bin Laden isn’t as important as the challenging statement. The truth is that Obama isn’t powerless, but rather, that he’s chosen to water down the power of our American government and military to advance his foolish pacifist dreams. Foolish because nobody Obama tries to coddle pays attention to him. In fact, they regard his olive branches as a sign of weakness and ignore him. Foolish, also, because by continuing to project such wishy-washiness, Obama is putting the United States military – and indeed, all of America – in danger of future terrorist attacks.

A few weeks ago, we learned that captured Afghan terrorists were being read Miranda rights. Then last week, we heard that the rules of engagement in Afghanistan changed and that if any Afghan civilians are potentially at risk, American soldiers can’t attack the enemy. This new game plan has already cost us American lives.

We also heard that Obama is hamstringing our military from making headway in winning the war. According to Ralph Peters, “The classified status report from Afghanistan by Gen. Stanley McChrystal was censored by the White House before its submission. As a result it’s all buns and no burger. According to multiple (angry) sources, McChrystal – our top soldier on the ground – intended to ask for 28,000 more US troops. A presidential hatchet man directed the general not to make the request” (“O’s Afghan woes,” New York Post, September 3, 2009, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/afghan_woes_J8JZ95su7y550Pqj1ddQ3I).

In other words, the president is using military strategists as figureheads and sending yes men to say no   That’s some way to fight a war, isn’t it?

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal features a powerful piece co-written by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Joe Lieberman (I/D-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ). They’ve assessed the war and think it’s winnable, but “we need more than the right team and the right strategy. This team must also have the resources it needs to succeed – including a significant increase in U.S. forces” (“Only Decisive Force Can Prevail in Afghanistan,” September 13, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574404753110979442.html).

Given Obama’s track record, that surge is unlikely to happen anytime soon. If anything, he will continue to make it easier for the enemy to get away with literal murder.

To wit: there’s more reconfiguring in the works. According to yesterday’s New York Times, Afghan war detainees will be provided more power to challenge their imprisonment. What does this mean, exactly? Only that hundreds of Afghan prisoners can get in line and make it more difficult for the U.S. to win this war. Oh, and it’ll be a U.S. representative who will be helping to set free the enemy.

Each day we hear of another misstep by this novice community organizer turned president, from refusing to go tough on North Korea to re-thinking overseas missile defense bases to being diffident about Israel’s plight in the wake of Iran’s mounting nuclear capabilities.

The question naturally arises: why? Does Obama want to endanger us? Maybe Ralph Peters’ explanation of the president’s decision not to send more troops into Afghanistan provides us with the answer to all questions when it comes to Obama’s behavior in matters of foreign policy:  “Worried about poll numbers, our president is making a bad situation worse. He’s given McChrystal the impossible mission of turning Afghan Flintstones into Jetsons, while starving him of means” (“O’s Afghan woes”).

Obama has never stopped campaigning. He’s constantly worried about image and his popularity ratings. The man is clearly on a mission to erect a historical monument to himself, the rest of us and his country be damned.

The trouble is that in the process of doing so, he’s leaving us vulnerable overseas and on our own soil. America may be closer to the world of the Jetsons than the Flintstones, but with regressive Obama at the helm, we can easily find ourselves living in Fred and Wilma’s Bedrock nation.

Liberals have a penchant for revising history, but some of their recent rewrites are especially alarming.

Look at the sanctification of Sen. Edward Kennedy, which is moving beyond whitewash and into fantastic territories.  Modern liberalism strikes again in blogger Melissa Lafsky’s Huffington Post article, “The Footnote Speaks: What Would Mary Jo Kopechne Have Thought of Ted’s Career?” (8/27/09). Incredibly, Lafsky wonders what Kopechne, the young woman Teddy left to drown in Chappaquiddick, would think about Kennedy’s life and career.  Lafsky’s conclusion: “Who Knows – Maybe She’d Feel It Was Worth It” (The Huffington Post, August 27, 2009, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-lafsky/the-footnote-speaks-what_b_270298.html).  You read that right: Lafsky speculates that Mary Jo might think Kennedy went on to do so much good that it was worth her drowning to advance the man’s career!

She’s not the only female championing Teddy.  Another who should know better and who at one time slammed him in a book, Joyce Carol Oates, all but praises the departed senator for the success of his second act (Joyce Carol Oates, “Kennedy’s redemption from the depths,” August 27, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/27/edward-kennedy-usa).

Then we have President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.), who claims that Obama’s rhetorical skills are doing more to punch out international terrorism than any move enacted by the Bush administration.  According to Jones, because of the president’s willingness “ to discuss things with other rulers to enhance the working relationships with law enforcement agencies” America is making more headway in the war than ever before (Jake Tapper, “ABC News Exclusive: National Security Adviser Says President Obama is Having Greater Success Taking Terrorists Out of Commission Than Bush Did,” ABC News, August 31, 2009, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/abc-news-exclusive-national-security-adviser-says-president-obama-is-having-greater-success-taking-t.html).

(Right.  That’s why al-Qaeda is making a startling comeback in Afghanistan; why Pakistan’s terrorist incidents are on the upswing; why last Friday, Pakistan diffidently released nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan, who many intelligence officials in America and India consider a serious threat to international peace; why Iraq just lived its most violent month since the days of the surge; why Scotland released the Lockerbie bomber; why the UAE just intercepted a ship carrying weaponry from North Korea to Iran.)

But maybe the most disturbing revision of history that’s in the works is the watering down of September 11.  It’s tempting to blame Obama for what seems to be an egotistical usurping of the day to advance one of his pet causes.  To do so, however, would make us guilty of our own quibble.  We don’t want to revise history, but rather track the blame.  To do so, we need to return to Ted Kennedy and the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.  The bill called for Americans to volunteer their services as a way to honor the fallen on September 11.  On April 21, 2009, Obama signed the bill into law (surprise, surprise), but even before that, President George W. Bush and some conservative members of Congress supported the idea of volunteerism on September 11.

That doesn’t make it right.  Instead of remembering those whom we lost and the ramifications of this most egregious attack on our country, liberals want us to showcase ourselves as meek citizens behaving in a penitent fashion.  This besmirches the memory of that horrific day.

It also reminds OK of an incident at our own university the day after the Towers fell.  The students got together and wanted to sing “The Star Spangled Banner.”  Liberal professors cried foul.  They said that to do so was to send out the wrong message.  They believed students should sing “America the Beautiful” instead.  OK disagreed.  We believe the students had the right idea.  What was wrong with singing a song affirming our nation’s resilience in the aftermath of the blow that had just been leveled upon us?

Conservatives should fight against this damaging revision of the history books.  September 11 should not be a day in which we pretend that nothing happened.  It should be a day to remember our dead and one of the most violent attacks on American soil.

By Oscar De Los Santos

We’ve heard a lot about Henry Louis Gates, Jr’s, arrest in Cambridge last week. Why? Because President Obama wedged his way into the incident. Michelle Malkin asserts that Obama weighed in on Gatesgate because he’s a “racial opportunist” (“Today Show,” July 29, 2009). The president will soon be playing bartender to fix his gaffe – but the truth is that even after the Obama-Gates-Sgt. Crowley summit, Gatesgate will continue to draw attention from more pressing matters.

Let’s not forget that an American soldier is still being held hostage in Afghanistan and seven men were recently arrested in North Carolina for conspiring to commit terrorism. These events and several others should remind our government and the American people not to shirk matters of national security.

Even as he orders our defense budget trimmed, cancels orders for military equipment and ignores the need to implement U.S. missile defense systems abroad, Obama is trying to sell socialized medicine to America and planning a White House beer bust.

Obama’s need for Oktoberfest in July is also security related – but it deals with a local matter into which the president should not have stepped. But he did, and as a result, he’s had to devote considerable time to cleaning up the mess.

The last question of his Obamacare press conference last week focused on Gates’ arrest. After admitting he didn’t have all the facts, Obama forged ahead with a cavalier opinion. In so doing, he scrubbed any progress he made on his health-care obsession.

If you’re concerned about Obamacare, there’s a positive side to Gatesgate. The president’s Bidenesque faux pau – saying, “The Cambridge police acted stupidly” when they arrested Gates – completely de-railed his push for so-called universal health care.

But ultimately, Gatesgate joins the health-care debate in pulling America’s attention away from pressing matters of national security. That’s dangerous. The worst thing we can do right now is to be complacent about our safety.   If we lull ourselves into a false belief that things are looking more positive overseas; if we let ourselves believe that we can pull out of Afghanistan prematurely; if we allow ourselves to obsess on Obama’s three-ring self-promotion circus, then we’re in big trouble.

The current administration needs constant watchdogging. Otherwise, its questionable actions go unchecked. To wit, shouldn’t we be concerned:

·        that the Obama administration is so hell-bent on helping ousted Honduran despot Zelaya regain power that it’s virtually lobbying for Zelaya’s reinstatement even as it cuts U.S. aid to the country? (Don’t we have enough on our plate without getting involved in this chaos?)

·        that American and British military authorities are pursuing dialogue with allegedly moderate members of al-Qaeda? (Who but brainwashed pacifists believe that there are mild-mannered al-Qaida among the bad?)

·        that Obama & Co. continue to throw Israel under the bus in its troubles with Hamas and Iran?

·        that Russia has declared it won’t exert any pressure on Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions?

·        that North Korea continues to violate sanctions – and advertise what it has for sale to interested parties – with each missile test?

These points illustrate major flaws in the current administration’s thinking. Gatesgate has led to a forthcoming meeting that’s more about helping Obama do damage control to his image than getting into a fruitful discussion of racism. Let’s not let the preoccupations of a narcissistic president and a publicity-seeking scholar steer attention away from more pressing matters that involve keeping America safe.

By Kelly L. Goodridge and Oscar De Los Santos

One More Weak Presidential Pick!

Legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11 outlines the following priorities for the United States: to prevent a terrorist attack, to reduce our vulnerability to such an attack and to aid with recovery if the U.S. should be attacked. However, new Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s failure to mention the words terror, terrorism or terrorists at her first House Homeland Security Committee meeting (February 24), raises serious doubt that she understands her job description.

Many of us will never forget what terrorists did on 9/11. We believe that meeting homeland security issues is vital. Terrorism is a real threat to our safety, yet Napolitano and President Obama have eliminated ‘war on terror’ lingo from their vocabulary. Keeping Americans safe should be their top priority, but Obama’s plan to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, release known terrorists and try terrorism suspects in the U.S. justice system demonstrates a clear shift from Homeland Security’s intended priorities.

How Do You Spot an Islamic Terrorist?

Ann Coulter says she knows. “As he slits your throat, he shouts, ‘Allah is great!’” (www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2008/04/03/coulter).   Obama’s release of Gitmo terrorists is shocking. News broke over the weekend that there are security leaks regarding Marine One. Canada released word that Russian aircraft were nearby during Obama’s February visit to Canada. And according to American intelligence sources, Iran is supplying the Taliban in Afghanistan with surface-to-air missiles. Iran also recently accused Obama’s UN ambassador of making Bush-like accusations against Iran.

These acts on the part of foreign powers are attempts to test, discredit and disarm America, even as we learn that Iran recently successfully tested its nuclear power plant. The plant can be used to power parts of the country or just as easily be reprocessed to convert reactor fuel into plutonium for a nuke or two. Or three.

Obama and Napolitano would do well to remember that more than the American economy is in upheaval. They should take a good stare at foreign policy and insure that America remains combat ready. Now is not the time to be tossing olive branches left, right and center.

Unfortunately, there are signals that budgets and borders are merging into one slippery mess. Circulating rumors predict that Obama plans to grant the Chinese eminent domain over American land and business as collateral for U.S. debt. North Korea is test firing long-range missiles, in clear violation of old agreements, and we’re not doing much about it.

Then there’s our increasingly troublesome relationship with Russia. The U.S. needs a base in Kyrgyzstan to maneuver in and out of Afghanistan. The Kyrgyz will soon shut down that base. Enter Vladimir Putin, who has offered us a “caravan route through Russia and its Central Asian client states to make up for the loss of Manas.” Why the nice guy treatment all of a sudden? Ralph Peters makes an astute observation: “With our main supply route through Pakistan increasingly threatened, Putin wants to addict us to an alternative under his direct control” (“The Putin Plan To Sucker America,” New York Post, Feb. 25, 2009).

Napolitano needs a strategy for keeping America safe from people who hate us. It’s wise to keep an eye on the south and mobilize troops to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, but it’s foolish to neglect the war overseas as we watchdog Mexico’s instability.

On the other hand, why should we expect Napolitano to attend to homeland security threats from across the ocean when her track record for keeping our southern borders secure is dismal?

We’ll discuss that more extensively next time because there's much more to say about our new Homeland Security director.

By Oscar De Los Santos and Kelly L. Goodridge

The beginning of the end of Guantanamo Bay detention center is here and it underscores the Obama administration’s increasingly slipshod national defense strategy. Obama will no doubt continue with plans to close Gitmo within a year; he signed an executive order pledging to do so. Yet on Sunday (Feb. 22), The Seattle Times reported the Pentagon has concluded, “that the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, meets the standards for humane treatment of detainees established in the Geneva Convention accords.”  The left must be disappointed by this news – it certainly refutes statements given by known terrorists. 

Binyam Mohamed was released from Gitmo yesterday (Monday, Feb. 23).  In November 2005, he was charged with treason. Mohamed was accused of planning to bomb apartment buildings and detonate a dirty bomb on the U.S. transport network. Mohamad claims that he was tortured “medieval style.”  In 2006, the Supreme Court decided President George W. Bush couldn’t create military commissions. New charges were leveled against Mohamed in 2008. Finally, all charges were dropped against him because he might have been subjected to waterboarding while being interrogated.

Nevertheless, Mohamad is a terrorist and a liar. He is a member of al-Qaeda. The United States is still at war with al-Qaeda terrorists. Mohamad allegedly received al-Qaeda training in Afghanistan and Pakistan (Gateway Pundit, 2/23/09). To release him is to mock every American – every human being – who has ever suffered direct or peripheral pain as a result of this rogue terrorist organization. 

Today, while thousands of al-Qaeda victims lie in graves or are ashes or floating atoms, Benyam Mohamad walks the streets of London, a free man.  This is not only an injustice, it’s another example of the mendacity at the heart of the new Obama administration.

Col. Gordon Cucullu appeared on Sean Hannity’s show on the Fox News Channel last Friday (2/20/09), to discuss his book, Inside Gitmo. Cucullu revealed that Gitmo terrorists regularly injure American guards and medics that service them. The Colonel also claimed that “there are four hundred attacks annually by the detainees on the guards and medics . . . these include grabbing and breaking arms by smashing them against the cell to throwing bodily fluids, semen, spit, urine on the guards” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5wXrDLLLaM). In one instance, a detainee asked a nineteen-year-old female medic for assistance. When she leaned forward, he grabbed her head and bashed her face repeatedly against his cell. He broke bones in her face and she has since undergone 16 operations to reconstruct it.

The president met with members of the USS Cole and families of 9-11 victims recently.  He did so because he chose to end all military trials at Guantanamo base, thus leaving the architect of the Cole bombing plot unpunished. That didn’t necessarily mean that criminals were going to be set free right away. When Obama signed the executive order to close Gitmo his second day in office, part of the plan called for the formation of “a commission to devise future policies on detention within the next 180 days” (Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/gitmo-to-close-obama/2009/01/23/1232471534632.html). Yet Benyam Mohamad was released yesterday.  (Don’t worry: he was flown out before Attorney General Eric Holder arrived for a tour of the base later in the day.)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says that the Obama administration is trying to “come up with a plan that ensures our security and does so in a way that meets the test of our values” (“Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 2/20/2009,” www.whitehouse.gov). Neither of those goals is being met.  Our security gets more watered down by the day.  Consider that the Obama administration:

Is backing away from the missile defense system that George W. Bush was working to place in the Czech Republic.

Is behaving diffidently when it comes to Pakistan.  As Dick Morris points out, Team Obama recently “closed all overseas CIA interrogation centers” and has taken a negligent position with Pakistan:  “Pakistan, a supposed ally, has just concluded a deal with the Taliban ceding to its control an area on the Afghan/Paki border which its troops had, unsuccessfully, tried to capture.  The Taliban now has the same deal it had in Afghanistan - a protected sanctuary from which to launch raids on the West” (DickMorris.com, Feb. 19, 2009).

Has pledged $900 million dollars to rebuild Gaza, when everyone knows that Hamas absconds with most aid and funding channeled into the region.

Is not fighting Kyrgystan’s plan to shut down a U.S. military base that plays an important role in American operations in Afghanistan.

Yes, we have major troubles on our own soil right now, but the economic turmoil we’re facing is no excuse to grow indifferent about keeping America safe. In fact, it’s one of the president’s main duties.

Surprisingly, the Obama camp recently upheld the Bush administration’s detention of Afghanistan military prisoners.  But with Gitmo’s doors closing and another terrorist released yesterday, how long will it be before the Afghan detainees are set free?