When I first heard the audio of Barry’s speech on Rush Limbaugh’s show while driving from a staff meeting, I was floored. I wasn’t sure I heard it correctly. And, being so busy today, I had no chance to check till now.

Barry’s speech was a litany of consistent “we suck, we aren’t winning in Iraq, The Surge hasn’t worked, let’s vamoose. He also had a little blurb about it being our fault for fighting back that Islamic extremists want to kill the Infidel (”In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, I warned that war would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East, create new centers of terrorism, and tie us down in a costly and open-ended occupation.”) You can listen and watch some of it, but, check out at 1:10

What he said

But understand what the essential argument was about. Before the surge, I argued that the long-term solution in Iraq is political – the Iraqi government must reconcile its differences and take responsibility for its future. That holds true today. We have lost over a thousand American lives and spent hundreds of billions of dollars since the surge began, but Iraq’s leaders still haven’t made hard compromises or substantial investments in rebuilding their country. Our military is badly overstretched – a fact that has surely been noted in capitals around the world. And while we pay a heavy price in Iraq – and Americans pay record prices at the pump – Iraq’s government is sitting on a $79 billion dollar budget surplus from windfall oil profits.

Glad Mr. 57 States has a solid grasp on the number of American soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq.

I’m tempted to pick apart the rest of the speech, including his idiotic windfall profits for the Iraqi’s stupidity, but, after that gaffe of epic proportions on the troops, just one more. Paragraph 12

This is a war that we have to win. And as Commander-in-Chief, I will have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists who threaten America, and finishing the job against the Taliban.

Barry does realize that the Taliban was not the group who attacked us, right? And that the Taliban is much less a threat to America then Saddam Hussein was, right? And that Al Qaeda is a separate group, right? And, while they gave shelter to Al Qaeda, they really had nothing to do with implementing 9/11, right? And that Al Qaeda is a worldwide group, right? Maybe Barry could pick someone who has more actual foreign policy and anti-terrorism experience and knowledge then himself. Someone like Paris Hilton or Britney Spears.

PS: Barry also had a little hissy fit

“I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America, so do you, and so does John McCain. When I look out at this audience, I see people of different political views. You are Democrats and Republicans and independents. But you all served together, and fought together, and bled together under the same proud flag. You did not serve a red America or a blue America -– you served the United States of America.”

Guess Free Speech is out under an Obamafuhrer reign.

Hmm, interesting. Yesterday, Firedog-in-blackface-lake whined about Right Wing Blogosphere Completely Ignores Domestic Terrorism In Knoxville. Checking the blackface site today, there is no mention of Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar getting wacked by a Predator strike

One of al Qaeda’s top chemical and biological weapons experts was killed in an air strike by a CIA pilotless drone in a remote Pakistani border region, senior Pakistani intelligence officials told CBS News Tuesday morning.

Intelligence officials investigating the Sunday night missile attack confirmed that Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri was one of six men killed and his remains had been positively identified.

Al-Masri, an Egyptian national, became notorious for developing chemical and biological weapons for al Qaeda. He was known to have used a variety of animals, including dogs, cats and frogs in brutal experiments which often left the animals dead.

You would think that would be an important story for the folks who say that “Iraq is a distraction, we should be fighting in Afghanistan, and invading Pakistan like Barry says.” But, no. Crickets. But, Firedog-in-blackface-lake does have a piece claiming there are fake “terra alerts.” They take national security as seriously as Barry does. To say, not at all.

Well, anyhow, Masri is one more dead nutjob who we won’t have to worry about liberals complaining about our treatment of if he was stuck in the hoosegow. Then wanting him released.

The Associated Press gives it the old college kindergarten try: Iraq War’s Price Tag Nears Vietnam’s

The total cost of the Iraq war is approaching the Vietnam War’s expense, a congressional report estimates, while spending for military operations after 9/11 has exceeded it.

The new report by the Congressional Research Service estimates the U.S. has spent $648 billion on Iraq war operations, putting it in range with the $686 billion, in 2008 dollars, spent on the Vietnam War, the second most expensive war behind World War II. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. has doled out almost $860 billion for military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world.

All estimates, adjusted for inflation, are based on the costs of military operations and don’t include expenses for veterans benefits, interest on war-related debts or assistance to war allies, according to the nonpartisan CRS.

“Doled out.” I wonder how much money has been doled out in the war on poverty, now in it’s 5th decade with no end in sight, no progress, and no exit strategy.

You have to know that the AP was thrilled when it saw the figures “hey, we can compare Iraq to Vietnam again! Maybe people on the Left will buy a few newspapers. We’re getting killed here!”

Have we spent too much on Operation Iraqi Freedom? Yes, I think we have. There were a couple fundamental flaws in the initial plan. We should have understood that the Iraqi military units would say “screw this, I’m outa here. I’m not dying for Saddam,” based on what happened during the Gulf War.

And, we should have secured the borders of Iraq, putting the word out that we would kill anyone crossing into Iraq at anyplace other then approved checkpoints, and followed thru. Regardless, and whether on purpose or by accident, Iraq has become the central focal point in fighting the war on terrorism. It is a much better place to draw the jihadis in and kill and capture them then Afghanistan, one of the worst places to fight on the planet.

But, really, the whole point of this exercise by the AP, which includes the costs of America’s wars and their percentage of the GDP, is to compare Iraq to Vietnam, a war that the Left forced the USA to lose. Which is what they still want for Iraq. As does their candidate.

I’d also say they are attempting to link McCain, who served in Vietnam, with the cost of Iraq, but, I don’t think the AP is really that smart. Do you?

Trackposted to Nuke’s, Allie is Wired, third world county, 123beta, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Phastidio.net, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Democrat=Socialist, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Sound advice from the Times Online: Cheer up. We’re winning this War on Terror

Al-Qaeda and the Taleban are in retreat, the surge has worked in Iraq and Islamism is discredited. Not a bad haul.

“My centre is giving way. My right is in retreat. Situation excellent. I shall attack!”

If only our political leaders and opinion-formers displayed even a hint of the defiant resilience that carried Marshal Foch to victory at the Battle of the Marne. But these days timorous defeatism is on the march. In Britain setbacks in the Afghan war are greeted as harbingers of inevitable defeat. In America, large swaths of the political class continues to insist Iraq is a lost cause. The consensus in much of the West is that the War on Terror is unwinnable.

And yet the evidence is now overwhelming that on all fronts, despite inevitable losses from time to time, it is we who are advancing and the enemy who is in retreat. The current mood on both sides of the Atlantic, in fact, represents a kind of curious inversion of the great French soldier’s dictum: “Success against the Taleban. Enemy giving way in Iraq. Al-Qaeda on the run. Situation dire. Let’s retreat!”

The writer, Gerard Baker, is kinda missing the point, though. Those on the Left feed on the doom and gloom like some sort of psychic vampire from a B horror movie, which is shown by many of the freakout comments left with the article.

The “surge”, despite all the doubts and derision at the time, has been a triumph of US military planning and execution. Political progress was slower in coming but is now evident too. The Iraqi leadership has shown great courage and dispatch in extirpating extremists and a growing willingness even to turn on Shia militias. Basra is more peaceful and safer than it has been since before the British moved in. Despite setbacks such as yesterday’s bombings, the streets of Iraq’s cities are calmer and safer than they have been in years. Seventy companies have bid for oil contracts from the Iraqi Government. There are signs of a real political reconciliation that may reach fruition in the election later this year.

Hmmmm. Which candidate was pushing for The Surge well before it was announced, and which one prefers to retreat in the face of advancements?

Brought to you by the same folks who have published national security programs designed to defend the United States from terrorist attacks, and were asked by the White House and Congress members of both parties to not publish, the NY Times provides the name of a CIA interrogator so that al Qaeda knows who to look for, along with his family, to torture and kill

The interrogator, Deuce Martinez, a soft-spoken analyst who spoke no Arabic, had turned down a C.I.A. offer to be trained in waterboarding. He chose to leave the infliction of pain and panic to others, the gung-ho paramilitary types whom the more cerebral interrogators called “knuckledraggers.” (snip)

Mr. Martinez declined to be interviewed; his role was described by colleagues. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the C.I.A., and a lawyer representing Mr. Martinez asked that he not be named in this article, saying that the former interrogator believed that the use of his name would invade his privacy and might jeopardize his safety. The New York Times, noting that Mr. Martinez had never worked undercover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news articles and books, declined the request. (An editors’ note on this issue has been posted on The Times’s Web site.)

Apparently, the Times feels that it is OK to play semantic games which put Martinez and his family in mortal harm simply for a story about KSM’s interrogation. I notice that the Times was in high outrage over the release of Valerie Plame’s name, which had been featured on Joe Wilson’s Who’s Who web page, despite her being a staff officer working at CIA headquarters, and not having been undercover for over 5 years.

For the most part, if they had just left Martinez’s name out of it, it would be a good story. But

(From the Editors Note) The newspaper seriously considered the requests from Mr. Martinez and the agency. But in view of the experience of other government employees who have been named publicly in books and published articles or who have themselves chosen to go public, the newspaper made the decision to print the name.

Will the Times take responsibility if something happens to him and/or his family? Freedom of the Press does not mean they can put someone in mortal danger. BTW, since Martinez was working undercover in a foreign nation, possibly within the last 5 years, doesn’t that mean he is covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act?

See Dubya: Like hell I’ll link these worthless blackhearted anti-American ass-grommets.

Allahpundit: Too bad, because an otherwise fascinating story about the scramble to build a counterterror apparatus after 9/11, the merits of coercive vs. non-coercive interrogation, and the stings that nailed Abu Zubaydah and KSM is going to be submerged in a debate over their decision to publish the lead interrogator’s name against his wishes and those of CIA chief Michael Hayden.

Fausta: ….tells us that the NYT has revealed the full name of the CIA man who managed to get Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to talk. Funny how the Times and other media were full of outrage when Valerie Plame, who used to drive into the CIA parking lot every morning with the top down of her Mercedes, was “outed”, but they have no problem in outing anyone else employed by the CIA.

Macsmind: The identity of CIA employee is classified, and although illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protections ACT, the CIA did ask that his name not be published. Therefore the Ny Times is in legal jeopardy for publishing his name.

Six Meat Buffet: Valerie Plame was a desk jockey but Martinez was actually out in the field interrogating the planners of 9/11. I hope the Congressional investigations will start shortly into these traitors who claim to have agonized over this decision to intentionally putting this man at risk.

Flopping Aces: Yes, if only he were an “undercover” operative like Valerie Plame Wilson. Then the NY Times would have kept him anonymous. [/sarcasm]

Gateway Pundit: this time by releasing the name of the CIA interrogator in their article on the interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed the Times has put the interrogator and his family in grave danger.

For an opposing view, Talk Left thinks outing Martinez is a great thing, vis a vis releasing Martinez’s name (and is also trying to smear Martinez for being a former “Narcotics officer”: Good for the Times.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove and Right Wing News.