Zero....

As will surprise no one who has read this blog for any time, I am less-than-impressed with Barack Obama. He is a leftist with ties to Marxists (Alinsky, Ayers), racists (Wright), and idiots (Biden).

But with his first two weeks, Obama has demonstrated one of the traits not commented on widely in recent days: Inexperience with leadership.

Obama has little experience at running anything larger than his former Senate office. His Harvard Law Review days show little evidence of leadership. He is our Community-Organizer-in-Chief, now cast into a leadership role, and he is floundering.

His Cabinet choices are appalling. Clinton is damaged goods (her husband's speaking fees from foreign sources), Holder is a politically-tied Attorney General, Geithner is a tax cheat. Richardson, Daschle and Killefer had to withdraw. His Labor Department nominee is in trouble. These are mistakes that those who have not lead make.

He is being treated rudely by the families of those killed in the GWOT. A leader would know how to assuage these people.

Iran and North Korea taunt him. Is Pakistan deliberately trying to embarass him?

His stimulus plan, while it may pass, has damaged him.

On That-Forum-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named, I have been challenged for addressing Obama as "Zero". However, for a man of no accomplishment, who screws up half his cabinet appointments, who offers no solutions to our problems, who offends the families of our heros, who tin-horn dictators around the world openly mock, the term "Zero" seems to be apt.

His weakness is everywhere.

Told you so.

I'm beginning to get a hinky feeling about this...

[Love that word, BTW. "Hinky". Makes me feel like a private detective, or something. I guess it means "suspicious", but it sounds like it can mean all sorts of things. Anyhooo, I digress, before I even get started.....]

It was either on one of the blogs I infrequently get to or one of my internet acquaintances, a guy who I listen to when he speaks, who has a theory about global politics/economics. For the sake of telling this story, I'm going to say it's the later, but I could be wrong. Anyway, it's kind of a long story, but he believes that the Powers That Be are acting according to a script and that all the large geo/economic/political acts that we're all now watching are part of that script. The PTB have built up a large house of cards of debt, and the only way to consolidate things from here is to crush our economy and to end up with a global currency (which they, of course, would control). Control the currency, and you control everything (which is why our Founding Fathers were [rightly] concerned about the power of a Central Bank).

Anyhoo, he believes that the PTB are looking at a number of issues circling around things. One of the larger items on their plate is the question of: What to do about Iran? They're obviously crazy with an apocolyptic view of the return of the 13th Imam or Seventh Seal, or whatever their damned thing is. A rational world has to believe they're serious when they start talking about destroying Israel or London or whatever other city is bugging them. Iran just has to be dealt with. The question is: When?

As much as we may see this as a conflict between America and our western allies and Iran, China and Japan are really big players here. They apparently have bought off on the idea of subdueing Iran. Again, timing is the key.

The Chinese Olympics this summer were a really big deal for them. They had invested a lot of prestige on this event, hoping to make the world believe that they deserve a place in the First World. So attacking Iran before these Olympics was out of the question. Parenthetically, the Russians embarassed the Chinese by their little adventure into Georgia during the Olympics.

What form will the attack take?

The Israeli's have a deep interest here. The Iranians are absolutely irrational about Israel. Both Israel and Iran have conducted exercises which, for any observer, would look like an attack on the other.

As the theory goes, the determinant then goes to our election. If the Israeli's think that we'll elect a President Obama, then the attack may take place before the election. If they think we'll elect McCain, then the attack will occur between the election and the inauguration. In any event, it will occur on Bush's watch.

So why do I write all this?

I'm glad you asked.

When I read that "US special forces launch rare attack inside Syria" and "Syria: US conducted cross-border raid", it may have been exactly what we're saying: Taking down a foreign fighter network, or grabbing/killing an al Qaeda bigwig.

But part of me has to ask: Is this an "October Surprise"? Did we eliminate a Syrian radar or anti-aircraft site to create a corridor for the Israelis to get to Iran?

Like I said: "Hinky".

Now this is a surprise...

New York Sun: Iran May End Cooperation With Nuclear Investigation.

"...President Ahmadinejad yesterday again vowed that his country would
not "retreat one iota" from pursuing uranium enrichment...."

Don't like the sound of this at all...

Not one little bit.

The Fleet Positions Itself For War Part II

Hacking the clock.

h/t Ace.

Wall Street Journal

Why Iraqi's Back McCain

From the op-ed...

"...That only makes America's ambivalence toward its democratic creation that much stranger to the Iraqis. Will the next administration abandon both its principles and its friends in the region? For what?..."

Yes, Barack. For what, exactly?

Another...

...Link worth keeping.

The Very Big War.

Concluding sentences (with my emphasis)...

"...Wars are awful but some wars really are necessary and this war is against an existential threat to the entire world. Since it must be fought, let there be no half measures, let victory be total. Any other result insults the memory of those already killed in this conflict and means that, ultimately, we will face a future nuclear war that will see tens of millions of us die."

A link worth keeping...

Norman Podhoretz: Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands (The last two paragraphs make a point I have long made: In Bush today, we are very much watching our next Churchill.)

"Alex, I'll take..."

"...'Option Two' for a thousand dollars."

Except it won't just be...

"...the New York Times [which goes] into hysterics."

It will be the entire lefty world. The eruption from "Peace Mom" Sheehan, Code Pink, and all the rest of the lefty world will make their current irrational antics seem like collegial discussion at Sunday School.

A "President Obama" (and for that matter, a "President Clinton" too) has nothing but bad choices here.

Iran:

"No endorsements out of us".

Two questions:

• Do presidential candidates--anywhere--expect or solicit foreign government endorsements?
• Assuming that Iran might have endorsed a candidate in the U.S. presidential race, does anyone care to guess at who it might be?

Oh, yeah...

...Remember that story a couple of months ago that said that Iran's nuclear threat was overstated?

Well...um...

Nevermind.

"The Rumsfeld strategy DID work...."

Let me repeat that...

"...The Rumsfeld strategy DID work...."

Don Rumsfeld, the big, bad, ogre who couldn't win the peace so easily handed to him, is now, with this post, completely vindicated.

And, by extension, I maintain that in President George W. Bush, we are not dealing with some bumpkin from Texas, but rather witnessing a modern-day Churchill.

h/t Purple Avenger over at Ace's place.

Three links worth mentioning...

First, here is something that completely destroys the ridiculous Iranian claims of impending air superiority.

Secondly, here is a posting which destroys the Lefty "If you support the war, why aren't you over there fighting it?" meme. h/t Gerard.

Finally, here is a riveting story of the courage that it takes to endure the chaos of combat while wounded and facing superior numbers. This story came through this story at American Thinker. Read both.

"Why Dems' Iraq pullout failed"...

So asks the top-of-the-fold headline in today's Arizona Republic. Anne Flaherty, AP's analyst here, brings out three No-Duh reasons...

"A convincing four-star general, an activist group that overplayed its hand and a plainspoken Defense secretary who doesn't bother to defend the Iraq invasion."

It's not until the second to last paragraph that we get...

"...Public opinion still remains in [the Democrats] corner, and they believe that, as the 2008 elections inch closer, Republicans will be in a tighter spot."

But what if this does not reflect American public opinion, but rather just the unchallenged view of the vocal Sheehan/Code-Pink/KosKidz/MSM left? Personally, while I do believe that the American public is tired of our Iraqi War front, I don't believe that we have ever wished to end it on terms other than victory. And the American public is becoming increasingly aware of the danger that Iran poses to us.

We are no more than thirty years into a Hundred-Years War against Islamofacism. Despite that the Democrats believe that they can legislate an end to the war, this won't be over soon.

Hmmmm. Interesting...

I'm getting some of my readers from searches for pictures I linked to in this posting of a year and a half ago. Specifically, they're looking for...



and



It's almost enough to make one believe that hostilities with Iran are in the offing.