Taliban Escalate Siege of Pakistan: Militants Hit Army HQ; 10 Die in Brazen Attack on Military's Nerve Center!

Well, this an unwelcomed update to my entry last night, "As Obama Dawdles, Taliban Mount Terrorist Offensive Across South Asia."

The Taliban continued their siege of South Asia Saturday morning with another brazen incursion, storming Pakistan's military headquarters and killing 6 soldiers, with 4 militants dead in the fighting. Here's the report at the Los Angeles Times:

In a brazen attack that struck the Pakistani military's nerve center, gunmen disguised in army uniforms broke into the grounds of the country's army headquarters in Rawalpindi on Saturday, sparking a furious firefight that left four attackers and six soldiers dead.

As of late Saturday afternoon, two of the gunmen remained at large on the army headquarters premises, military officials said.

The initial attack, which lasted about 90 minutes, illustrated the breadth of the militants' ability to launch attacks virtually anywhere in the violence-racked Muslim nation -- even the epicenter of Pakistan's vaunted security establishment.

Full details at the link.

And just in case it's not clear: THESE ARE TALIBAN MILITANTS!! Hello President Obama? No threat to Afghanistan's recovery? Say what? No threat to Afghanistan is no threat to America, right? God help us!

See also, the Washington Post, "Gunmen Assault Pakistan Army Headquarters, at Least 6 Troops Dead." Plus, Right Truth, "Taliban Gunmen Invade Pakistan's Military HQ, Push Towards its Nuclear Arsenal."

I have been covering the AF-PAK security crisis with increasing regularity. The Taliban South Asian offensive is the real thing. And the terrorists' timing couldn't have been better. With President Obama's Nobel Prize, the world community is looking for the U.S. to achieve "peace" in the region, and that's to be achieved by a redeployment of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. The appeasers in Oslo sent a message with the award: Don't escalate the mission President Obama. Repudiate the Bush administration's robust stand against terror. Join the international community in capitulating to evil. We've got your back in the court of public opinion. Indeed, this morning's New York Times asks, "What Does a Nobel Do for U.S. Leaders?" And we know the answer: It gives them cover to cut-and-run from the threatening storm of a hegemonic terrorist takeover. Meanwhile, we've got radical left journalists cheering on the president, not only for a surrender to terrorists, but for moving toward a unilateral U.S. nuclear disarmament ("God willling," they say). It's only a matter of time. We'll have another Mumbai for sure. And it's the next WMD Armageddon -- increasingly likely under this administration's watch -- that's going to come sooner rather than later.

No thread yet at Memeorandum, but there should be -- a long one.

See also, Snooper Report, "Taliban Aren't A Threat To Anyone - REALLY?"

Added: Riehl World View, "Taliban Making Big Push In Pakistan?" And Atlas Shrugs, "Islam Attacks: Muslim Militants Hold Hostages After Storming Pakistan Army Headquarters."

When to Call a Racist a Racist

Where are all the radical leftists? You'd think we'd see a better race-baiting turnout in response to Georgia's Patrick Lanzo. The guy posted a sign out in front of his Paulding Country restaurant suggesting the administration's ObamaCare legislation is a "nigger rig" to fix the healthcare system (and the dude's said to boast "a mannequin in a Klu Klux Klan costume" back by the pool tables). Another Black Conservative calls out the lefties, "This Is What Real Racist Opposition To Obama Looks Like":

Memo to all members of the Raaacism Industrial Complex:

Please read and study this picture and article above. This is what REAL racist opposition to Obama looks like. Notice, there is no use of “speech codes” like the word “socialism”. There is no trick photography required and not a subliminal message to be heard.

So to all you members and followers of the Raaaaacism Industrial Complex who applaud in agreement to the manufactured racism of Janeane Garofalo, Jimmy Carter, Rep. Hank Johnson and the like know this, you are helping to hide real racists like Lanzo in a sea of falsely accused racists.

Actually, there are a couple posts linking Lanzo to conservative opponents of the president. For one, Gawker has an entry titled, "Racist Old Man: 'I Am Not Racist'." That piece then links to some stupid episodes during the campaign last year that no one takes seriously (Obama food stamps?). Recall, in every single case like this conservatives denounce the racist imagery. Normally, the idiots who post such stuff are shamed by the PC police, and it's not unusual for a political career to implode.

Folks like those at Gawker will take every chance they can get to remind white America of its racial past. At the sidebar to the Paulding County story is this post, "Why We Need to Be Reminded That Michelle Obama Is Descended from Slaves. And that entry includes this image below for extra schock value. Never mind the fact that Michelle Obama, to the best of my knowledge, has never been chained like an animal her entire life, readers are already commanded to feel sorry for the First Lady because of her race:

Further, in discussing a recent New York Times story on Mrs. Obama's slave history, the Gawker article notes that:

Michelle Obama's ancestry isn't really the point: It's that the distant monumental evil that lives in history books can be tangibly connected to her, and to see the actual lives of her ancestors who lived with slavery and its consequences recounted with texture and detail is all the more moving because it is so rarely done.

As someone who teaches the "monumental evil" every semester - starting with the slavery clauses in the Constitution, then all the way to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and affirmative action today - I can guarantee you that America's pernicious, peculiar institution is not a distant memory. Young people are constantly bombarded with America's slave past. My oldest son's in 8th grade and U.S. history is assigned this year. Anyone who's looked at the contemporary history curriculum is well aware that historians rarely if ever pass-up the chance to retell the story of our "monumental evils." It's just there. And it ain't going away, and I don't think folks want it to go away.

Racism is wrong. Slavery was wrong. And I think Patrick Lanzo's sign is wrong. But the man is not representative of conservatives today. If Mr. Lanzo wants to exercise his First Amendment rights, at least he's putting his money where his mouth is: If folks are upset by his sign, they don't have to patronize his restaurant. Indeed, what more fitting way to protest his racist imagery than to reverse the pattern of Jim Crow segregation. Boycott the guy in the great tradition of the civil rights movement.

Of course, with yesterday's big outrage over President Obama's Nobel award for his manifest non-accomplishments, the race-card maniacs are due out for another big showing today. Larisa Alexandrovna, for example, starts off the day with her entry, "Republicanistan - A Country of Its Own." Hmm, "Republicanistan"? Conservatives as Taliban? Where'd we here that one before? Larisa recently attacked me with this odd description, "Donald Douglas, is an ultra-nationalist, openly racist professor of political science." I guess that puts me in good company, with Michelle Malkin, for example: "Malkin and the Racists..."

I'm putting up Larisa Alexandrovna with Janeane Garofalo as a candidate for race-baiter of the year. (See my previous post, with my picture, "White Power! Janeane Garofalo Has Revealed My Secret!") Folks like this, who have denuded the word "racism" of what real revolting impact it should evoke, have joined folks like Patrick Lanzo in the racist hall of shame. (See also, Confederate Yankee, "Diluted.")

Thank God for we still have some folks, like Clifton cited above, and Mary Baker (author of the majesterial essay, "Why I am No Longer an African American"). More commentary at Memeorandum.

As Obama Dawdles, Taliban Mount Terrorist Offensive Across South Asia

Atlas Shrugs reported yesterday, "Taliban Bomb Indian Embassy in Kabul, Obama Surrenders, Accepts Some Taliban Involvement in Afghanistan's Political Future."

Now today, three back-to-back reports at the Los Angeles Times illustrate the catastrophic dangers likely to follow from the Obama administration's vacillation on Afghanistan:

First, "Obama Shifting Focus to Al Qaeda Over Taliban: The Evolving Strategy Could Help the Administration Avoid the Major Troop Increase Being Sought by U.S. military Commanders in Afghanistan."

That's followed by, "Taliban Claims Responsibility for Kabul Embassy Attack: The Suicide Bombing is the Second Against the Indian Embassy in the Afghan Capital in 15 months. It kills 17 people and injures 76. In India, Suspicions Focus on Pakistan."

And now this evening's report, "Pakistan Suicide Car Bombing Kills 49 at Market: The Government Believes the Taliban is Behind the Bombing. The Militants Have Vowed to Step Up Suicide Attacks as the Military Prepares for an All-Out Offensive in South Waziristan":

The attack was a deadly reminder of the risks President Obama faces as he considers shifting his regional strategy to focus on Al Qaeda rather than the Afghan Taliban as the biggest threat to American security. The administration wants to make a distinction between the Taliban, based in Afghanistan and Pakistan and regarded as fundamentalist militants driven by a local agenda, and Al Qaeda's global terrorist network.

However, such a shift will have to take into account the role that the Pakistani Taliban plays in providing sanctuary to Al Qaeda in Pakistan's largely lawless tribal areas. When Al Qaeda militants fled eastern Afghanistan during the U.S.-led invasion in 2001, they entrenched themselves in the Waziristan region of northwestern Pakistan with the help of Pakistani Taliban fighters.

But recall Tuesday's briefing from the New York Daily News, "Taliban Claims Responsibility for Attack on United Nations World Food Program's Pakistan Compound." This article notes that an "estimated 10,000 Taliban fighters are preparing for battle" in South Waziristan, in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Also, pay attention to the last minute of the video above, featuring South Asia expert Daniel Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations. Markey says that "it's hard to draw a line between those groups that are not threatening to us" and those like al Qaeda. Markey notes that the Taliban have ties to a number al Qaeda offshoots. And thus recall my report from last week, "Another Mumbai? Qaeda-Taliban-Lashkar Ready to Strike Again." Intelligence reports indicate that the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba is gearing up for another round of attacks across South Asia, and a new round of Mumbai-style strikes could further destabilize the region. Wikipedia's entry for Lashkar-e-Taiba notes that the group has "developed deep linkages with Afghanistan and has several Afghan nationals in its cadre. The outfit had also cultivated links with the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan and also with Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network."

I simply fail to appreciate the wisdom of the Obama administration's rethinking of the Taliban danger in Afghanistan. President Obama's dawdling is putting in danger the lives of people around the world. But, the folks up in Oslo really like him!

See also, Hot Air, "New White House Sin: Taliban Nt Rally An Enemy, Has Role in Afghanistan’s Future."

RELATED: The Washington Post, "If We Lose Afghanistan..."

'Insha'Allah': Obama Nobel Emboldens Islamist/Socialist Enemy Alliance!

Well, it's not taking long. It certainly didn't escape the Nobel Commmittee that President Obama hasn't actually achieved anything. So, what better way to facilitate further capitulation to the terrorists than by emoldening the Islamist/socialist alliance to bring pressure on the administration?

As Fox News reports, "John Bolton, a U.N. ambassador in the Bush administration, told FOX News that the award will give leverage to Obama advisers opposed to sending more troops Afghanistan at the request of commanders."

And it's giving leverage to the Islamist and socialist critics of the administration. The Taliban, for example, "Taliban Condemn Obama as Nobel Prize Winner":

The Taliban Friday condemned the decision to award this year's Nobel Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama, saying he has "not taken a single step towards peace in Afghanistan".

"We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP.

"We condemn the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for Obama," he said by telephone from an undisclosed location.

"When Obama was elected president, we were hopeful he would keep his promise to bring change. But he brought no change, he has continued the same old strategy as (President George W.) Bush.

"He reinforces the war in Afghanistan, he sent more troops to Afghanistan and is considering sending yet more. He has shed Afghan blood and he continues to bleed Afghans and to boost the war here," he said.

Michael Moore joined the Taliban's denunciation, "Congratulations President Obama on the Nobel Peace Prize - Now Please Earn it!." And also, the hardline communist World Can't Wait, "In the Nobel Peace Prize for War Makers Department."

But get this: Firedoglake's radical Spencer Ackerman even praises the Nobel Committee in Arabic! Insha'Allah -- God-willing -- the prize will enable Obama's further prostration to the world's terrorists:

There are 120,000 troops in Iraq -- but by the summer of 2010 there will be 55,000; and by December 2011; practically none. There is a consideration of another Afghanistan escalation -- but as part of a measure, if adopted, to bring stability and peace to a region whose volatility threatens millions. (Yes, this isn't so convincing, even to me.) The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is heating up again -- but Obama has taken risk after risk already to address it, and his bigger risks are yet to come. We probably won't have a real climate bill in time for Copenhagen -- but through no fault of Obama's, and he's working to mitigate its consequences. The U.S. still has the world's biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons -- but Obama never promised that he could yield nuclear disarmament overnight. Guantanamo Bay is in business -- but not, insh'allah, for long.

Progressives have a unique responsibility to hold Obama to his own stated vision, and the vision that the Nobel committee honored today. But there is a difference between an incomplete agenda and a counterproductive one. And in truth, the agenda is never complete. The work goes on. But we are on a path. Fired up, ready to go.

So, no it's not the Republicans who have joined the Taliban, it's the neo-communist left!

Image Credit: Bosch Fawstin, "oBOMBa: When Envy Goes Nuclear."

Partisan Backlash Erupts Over Obama's Non-Accomplishments

Here's the RNC's response to the DNC's response to Michael Steele's response to President Obama's Nobel Prize:

“Like most Americans, the DNC can’t think of one achievement that the president has accomplished, so they resort to their predictable response and standard playbook of demonizing those who disagree with them. First they call Americans concerned over health care ‘rabid extremists’ and ‘angry mobs.’ Now, when challenged to answer the question of what the president has accomplished, Democrats are lashing out calling Republicans terrorists. That type of political rhetoric is shameful.”

More at Memeorandum.

See also, Dana Loesch, "DNC Says That People Who Question Obama’s Accomplishments Are Terrorists or Something."

Image Credit: The People's Cube, "Now Everyone Can Have A Nobel Peace Prize."

Obama to Accept Nobel Peace Prize: 'A Call to Action'

Allahpundit's post was the first I saw, and it's a good thing, because I thought it was a joke: "Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize. No, Really."

The president's excited, it turns out. See Mary Katharine Ham, "Obama 'Looking Forward' To Accepting Prize in Oslo." Also, the Politico, "President Obama: I Will Accept as 'Call to Action'."

Of course, this what it's really all about:

Perhaps the fact that Obama actually escalated the Afghan deployment is an oversight. So much for "peace," I guess?

There's something to be said for Obama's peacenik branding, in any case: "The United States is the most admired country globally thanks largely to the star power of President Barack Obama and his administration, according to a new poll."

Jennifer Rubin sums up my thinking on this farce: "There is no better illustration of the debasement of the “international community” and the fundamental unseriousness of what passes for international elite opinion." Also, from Phil Kerpen, "Obama Wins Prize for 'Hope' and 'Change'." And, a roundup at Berman Post, "Obama Wins The Nobel Peace Prize."

Additional reactions:

* Althouse, "'How can he now send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan?'."

* Astute Bloggers, "KOOL-AID DRINKING NOBEL COMMITTTEE JUMPS SHARK, GIVES OBAMA PEACE PRIZE!"

* Betsy's Page, "The Nobel Peace Prize: What a Joke!"

* Blazing Cat Fur, "Whaddaya Gotta do to Win a "Peace Prize" These Days?"

* The Blog Prof, "You've Got To Be Kidding Me..."

* Cold Fury, "Nobel Peace Prize Revamped."

* Chicks on the Right, "We’re Practically Too Speechless To Even Address Today’s Most Unbelievable News."

* Gateway Pundit, "Vote For Infanticide --- Win a Nobel Peace Prize."

* John Hawkins, "What Exactly Did Barack Obama Do To Win A Nobel Peace Prize?"

* Instapundit, "OBAMA WINS NOBEL PEACE PRIZE?"

* Jules Crittenden, "Peace In Our Time," and "One Other Thought."

* Michael Graham, "What Do Barack Obama And Yassir Arafat Have In Common?"

* William Jacobson, "Yes, The World Has Lost Its Mind."

* Les Jones, "Did Someone Slip Me a Crazy Pill ... ?"

* Dana Loesch, "Obama gets Nobel Peace Prize … For What?"

* Nice Deb, "Bam Wins Nobel Peace Prize."

* Flopping Aces, "Obama Awarded Nobel Peace Prize."

* Michelle Malkin, "Story of Obama’s life: “Rather Than Recognizing Concrete Achievement…”."

* The Monkey Cage, "Obama's (First?) Nobel Prize."

* Pirates Cove, "World Stunned As Obama Wins Peace Prize."

* Pundit & Pundette, "Nobel Committee feeds Obama Ego with Peace Prize."

* Riehl World View, "NO FREAKIN' WAY!: Obama Wins 2009 Nobel Peace Prize."

* Ruby Slippers, "Obama Awarded Nobel Prize for being Barack Obama."

* So It Goes in Shreveport, "And Now We've Entered Into a Parallel Universe."

* Sundries Shack, "Just Consider This the Obamessiah Version of the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem."

* Carolyn Tackett, "The Nobel's Affirmative Action Commitee."

* Theo Spark, "Theater of the Absurd."

* TrogloPundit, "Too Bad the Norwegian Nobel Committee Wasn’t in Charge of Handing Out the Olympics."

* His Vorpal Sword, "Dumb and Dumbererere."

* Wizbang, "Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize."

McCain Continues to Prove Himself the Enemy of the Grassroots

My latest essay at Pajamas Media is up today, "McCain Continues to Prove Himself the Enemy of the Grassroots":

The timing was impeccable. On the day after HarperCollins released the cover photo for Going Rogue — Sarah Palin’s highly anticipated autobiography — Steve Schmidt, John McCain’s former chief campaign advisor, predicted that if Palin were to win the 2012 GOP nomination, “we would have a catastrophic election result.” It was Schmidt, a veteran Republican strategist, who first advised Senator McCain to select Palin as his running mate in 2008. And it was Schmidt who first criticized Governor Palin within the McCain camp as “going rogue.” Asked how Palin’s book might describe their relationship during the election, Schmidt suggested that perhaps he was the “anti-rogue in the running of the campaign.”

Schmidt’s comments provide a nice backdrop to a recent report at Politico (”McCain’s Mission: A GOP Makeover.”) It turns out that the Arizona senator has been positioning himself as a major power broker within the Republican Party hierarchy. He is identified in the article as the party’s titular head; and the erstwhile presidential nominee has been raising money for moderate GOP candidates and hitting the campaign trail for pragmatic allies. As noted in the article:

“I think he’s endorsed people with center-right politics because he has an understanding that the party is in trouble with certain demographics and wants to have a tone that would allow us to grow,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is McCain’s closest friend and ally in the Senate.

“At a time when our party is struggling and has a lot of shrill voices and aggressive voices, he’s one that can expand our party,” said John Weaver, a longtime McCain friend and strategist.

This meme of McCain’s reemergence as the GOP’s elder statesman and centrist savior is not likely to go down well among grassroots conservatives.

Read the whole thing at the link.

Medea Benjamin on 'Rethinking' Afghanistan: 'Taliban Are Just Poor Villagers'

Scott Horton interviewed Medea Benjamin following reports that Code Pink was "rethinking" its call for a U.S. troop withrawal from Afghanistan:

Horton: ... I wanted to bring you on the show today was to talk about all the antiwar protests going on around the country, and I guess I just assumed you guys would be involved with that. And yet I’m reading in the Christian Science Monitor that you’re rethinking your call for a pullout from Afghanistan, and that you’ve had your mind changed about the Afghanistan war due to a recent trip that you took there. Can you elaborate on that?

Benjamin: I don’t think that piece really reflects our thinking. We took a delegation there and just got back yesterday. And we certainly did hear some people say that they felt if the U.S. pulled out right now there would be a collapse and the Taliban might take over, there might be a civil war. But we also heard a lot of people say they didn’t want more troops to be sent in and they wanted the U.S. to have a responsible exit strategy that included the training of Afghan troops, included being part of promoting a real reconciliation process and included economic development; that the United States shouldn’t be allowed to just walk away from the problem. So that’s really our position. Not the one that was implied in the Christian Science Monitor.

Horton: Well, and you know I actually considered setting up the first question that way. This is probably sloppy reporting. I can’t imagine that you guys just flip-flop. But again, you sort of seem to be saying, well this is what the people in Afghanistan told you and now that’s your position. Is that it?

Benjamin: Well actually, there were many different opinions in Afghanistan and unfortunately because of the security situation we were very limited in who we talked to. We didn’t get out to the countryside, we didn’t talk to people who had been the targets of U.S. bombing, we didn’t talk to people who lived under Taliban control. We, in a week, got to talk to an amazing variety of people, but they were all working inside Kabul, many of them coming from outside Kabul. We are putting up on our Web site interviews with some of the women who did tell us that they thought more U.S. troops would mean more civilian casualties and more recruits for the Taliban. And they said it very clearly. One of the women is a member of parliament. She comes from Wardak province, she’s a medical doctor, and she says that this is the best way to recruit the Taliban is to send more troops, that it’s time for another approach.

Horton: Hmm… Well, I appreciate that about you’re going ahead and stating that you were basically stuck in Kabul, you weren’t allowed to go around and see what it’s like on the other side. You know, it’s interesting the way you kind of gave it… especially in your first answer… "Well, we talked to people who said this and we talked to people who said that." And the way the Christian Science Monitor article is written is that these are all the reasons why you were convinced to change your mind to what they’re saying, when really it sort of sounds like you’re basically just reporting what you were told and then you have your own thing that you want to say that’s not necessarily – you know, [that is] separate from that in its own way. Right?

Benjamin: Well as in all discussions with people, it really depends on how you phrase the question. If you say to people, "Do you want 40,000 more troops, or would you like that money to go to economic development, healthcare, education?" They almost always said the latter. So people told us that war was not the answer. That after eight years of U.S. presence and billions of dollars being thrown into this conflict that the lives of people, especially those living outside of Kabul have virtually stayed the same, and that even women who know that the Taliban has had a very retrograde position in terms of women’s rights, even they told us that, look, the majority of Taliban are just poor villagers who don’t have another way to earn a living. We’ve got to reintegrate them into society, we’ve got to have peace talks and we’ve got to find ways other than through guns and bombs that we solve this conflict [emphasis added].

That's an interesting way to frame things. Kind of like President Barack Obama. See Gateway Pundit, "Unreal. Obama Says Taliban Killers Should Be Part of Afghan Government."

Code Pink's Jodie Evans: No 'Rethink' on Afghanistan - 'U.S. Troop Withdrawal Now' ... ANSWER Coalition Decries 'Criminal Occupation'

Here's the promised follow up and confirmation to my previous report, "Calling Bull on Code Pink 'Rethink Afghan' Meme: Antiwar Group Says End 'Occupation' Now!" ... Contrary to the big buzz online Wednesday, Code Pink has not revised its position on a "near-term" U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

I spoke with Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans Wednesday night in Los Angeles. I snapped the first photo above just as I walked up to the Code Pink contingent on the West side of Wilshire, across the street from the Federal Building. She was busy speaking with activists, and a television crew was setting up for an interview; but as she finished I asked her about Wednesday's report in the Christian Science Monitor, " 'Code Pink' Rethinks Its Call for Afghanistan Pullout." Ms. Evans emphatically rejected the thesis of the article. Medea Benjamin was "misquoted," she told me. Code Pink wants to bring the troops home, now! -- there's been no "rethinking" of the group's demand for withdrawal of U.S. forces. I asked her, then, what should be the U.S. goals for Afghanistan? She said the U.S. should focus on a humantiarian mission - education, healthcare and human rights, especially the rights of women. (Notice the propaganda posters focusing on women and children below.) She said Kabul was the model: "It's the only safe place in the country ... people can get healthcare and education ... we need to expand the success of Kabul to the rest of the country." I told her I was surprised to see the Monitor's report indicating that Code Pink was no longer calling for a troop pull out. She said she'd "been on the phone all day" clarifying Code Pink's position on the war. A troop withdrawal remains the objective, but the U.S. should stay to focus on improving quality of life. (See also, Code Pink's "Afghanistan Talking Points.")

The incompatibility between a total troop withdrawal and the security necessary to promote "unconditional humanitarian aid" didn't seem to occur to Ms. Evans. But I thanked her for her time, and returned across the street to the main protest. (For more on Jodie Evans, see Sweetness and Light, "Code Pink’s “Sugar Mommy” – Jodie Evans.")

Okay, this was earlier ... I arrived in Westwood a little before 5:00pm. International ANSWER's protest announcement is here: "U.S./NATO Out of Afghanistan! Bring All the Troops Home Now! Health care, Housing, Jobs, Education for All–Not War! End Colonial Occupation—Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine ..."

This woman, from the Party for Socialism and Liberation, was setting up her table:

She had a full rack of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary tracts as well:

The ANSWER cadres were setting up their signs and banners too. The ANSWER group was leading the crowd with chants, "OCCUPATION IS A CRIME ... IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, PALESTINE ... Also, "MONEY FOR JOBS AND EDUCATION ... NOT FOR WAR AND OCCUPATION..."

There was a big turnout for the 9/11 'Truthers':

These people seriously make me sick. I had some technical problems and didn't take additional photos. The "Truthers" hoisted a twenty-foot banner that read something like, "What we know about 9/11 is killing people ..." and "9/11 = Controlled Demolition." Photographs of similar signs are at the 9/11 Truth Now Action Network. See also, "ACTION ALERT: Anti-War Protest in Los Angeles - Get Out of Afghanistan! "

Check as well the 11:00pm video report from KABC-TV Los Angeles, here.

There were some "libertarian" representatives from Antiwar.com (one of their guys was sporting a '60s-style "mod" haircut ... weird).

Also in attendance were folks running the gamut of the hardline communist-left ... the Anti-Racist Action Network; the Freedom Socialist Party (socialist feminism); the International Committee of the Fourth International; the International Socialist Organization; Iraq Veterans Against the War; the National Assembly to End the Iraq War and Occupation; the Party for Socialism and Liberation (with pictures above); and World Can't Wait (see, "Demonstrations Mark 8th Anniversary of Afghan War - Demand Immediate U.S./NATO Withdrawal"),

A special note: I said hello to Ron Kovic before I left (I thanked him for his service to country, and he thanked me back, sincerely). And, as I headed back to the car, an activist asked me if I'd like to sign a petition for Representative Barbara Lee -- I said "no thanks," and the dude just about had a heart attack!

Calling Bull on Code Pink 'Rethink Afghan' Meme: Antiwar Group Says End 'Occupation' Now!

It's stupidly transparent, but leftist media outlets have launched a campaign to rehabilitate Code Pink, the hardline neo-communist protest group. The Christian Science Monitor quotes group co-founder Medea Benjamin as saying:

We would leave with the same parameters of an exit strategy but we might perhaps be more flexible about a timeline ... That's where we have opened ourselves, being here, to some other possibilities. We have been feeling a sense of fear of the people of the return of the Taliban. So many people are saying that, 'If the US troops left the country, would collapse. We'd go into civil war.' A palpable sense of fear that is making us start to reconsider that.

That sounds about right. The country will collapse without a continued robust presence of American forces. The only problem is that actions speak louder than words. Jonn Lilyea reported on the Code Pink antiwar rally Monday from the White House. And as the photos above attest, the group's still demanding a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan, as well as Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

And here's the statement at Code Pink's homepage:

October 2009, Eight Years in Afghanistan—How Many More?

At the current rate of American deaths in Afghanistan, over 1,000 additional American soldiers will be killed in the next two years of “hard fighting” predicted by the Pentagon as the next phase of a ten year occupation. Another $130 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq now is being rushed through a sleeping Congress. An escalation of even more troops is pending. We have been given the rationale that the war is to protect the rights of women, but what we hear from the women of Afghanistan is that the ongoing combat in their country causes incalculable suffering.

A majority of Americans – including 70 percent from the majority party – now consider Afghanistan a mistake. Now is the time for an exit strategy to end these wars.

And here's this from the ANSWER Coalition's protest announcement for today's event at the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles:

Here's the list of allied group's at the homepage:

Oct. 7 LA protest initiated by the ANSWER Coalition. Endorsed by March Forward!; Ron Kovic, Vietnam veteran, author, "Born on the 4th of July"; Blase & Theresa Bonpane, Office of the Americas, Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out-Orange County, National Council of Arab Americans; Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition; South Asian Network, Afghan Women's Mission, Muslim American Society Freedom, Council on American Islamic Relations-Southern California, Coalition for World Peace, Free Palestine Alliance, Alliance for Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines, GABRIELA Network, Palestinian American Women's Association, Out Against War, LA LGBT Greens, Peace and Freedom Party, Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, Addicted to War, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Montrose Peace Vigil, Students Fight Back, National Committee to Free the Cuban Five, Anti-Racist Action LA/People Against Racist Terror, Justice for Filipino American Veterans, KmB Pro-People Youth, Latino Movement USA, National Lawyers Guild, Comite Pro-Democracia en Mexico, Frente Unido de los Pueblos Americanos, Comites de Base FMLN, Los Angeles, Coalition for Peace and Democracy in Honduras, Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, Union of Guatemalan Immigrants, International Socialist Organization, American Friends Service Committee, Resistance Front Against the Coup in Honduras, LA Coalition in Solidarity with Cuba, Iraq Moratorium, MSA-CSULB, Minjok.com, Cafe Intifada, LA Palestine Labor Solidarity, San Fernando Valley Chapter of Alliance for Democracy, CODEPINK, Long Beach Area Peace Network, Coffee House Teach-Ins, Cuauhtemoc Aztec Dance and others.

Notice Code Pink mentioned toward the end of the list.

Medea Benjamin and other Code Pink leaders may indeed by "rethinking" their longtanding calls for immediate troop withdrawals. But the group's original positions remain unchanged at protest demonstrations, the homepage, and at the ANSWER coalition's contact page. No matter, in addition to the Christian Science Monitor, the Los Angeles Times and the leftist rag Raw Story are also spreading the propaganda.

Of course, this meme that Code Pink's "rethinking" Afghanistan is bull. Weasel Zippers frames it perfectly, "Height of Hypocrisy: Code Pink Rethinking Their Opposition to Afghan War...." See also, Red State, "The Sham Anti-War Movement":

If there was ever any doubt that the anti-war movement was nothing more or less than an adjunct of the Democrat party, that doubt has been swept away. One would think that with the war in Afghanistan at a critical stage and the administration drunkenly reeling from strategy to strategy apparently in search of a magic elixir or silver bullet that will make the war just go away that the anti-war movement would have been in fine form. If there was ever a time when their presence might have actually made a policy difference this was it.

However, now that Obama is in the White House the anti-war movement is curiously silent. The noxious Code Pink organization which was more than willing to consign 25 million Iraqis to rule by al Qaeda has decided that the war in Afghanistan, also against al Qaeda, doesn’t require an immediate withdrawal (h/t, Gateway Pundit) ....

The anti-war movement we were afflicted with over the past eight years was essentially a rent-a-mob that never had any larger objective than damaging President Bush. The outrage about the war in Iraq was driven not by any opposition to war, itself, but by the hatred President Bush attracted by refusing to let Al Gore steal the 2000 election. The internal contradiction so glaringly apparent in the movement, that of supposedly being against war while supporting a genocidal madman as the ruler of Iraq, is easily explicable when you view that movement as nothing more than street theater designed to weaken the president.

P.S. I'm leaving my office in a few minutes to drive to Los Angeles to cover the ANSWER protest. I'll have a report late tonight or tomorrow afternoon ... stay tuned!

Code Pink -- And Congressional Black Communist Barbara Lee -- Speaks Out on 8th Anniversary of Afghan War

From Code Pink's Jodie Evans, "8 Years of War: Speak Out Against the Occupation of Afghanistan ":

Eight years ago today, George Bush signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on Afghanistan. There had been only one dissenting vote, Congresswoman Barbara Lee from California (link to her speech). She was surprised to find she was the only vote, because many in the halls before had suggested they were against it, but she was the only one with the courage to go against the fear-mongering of the moment. She knew that rushing into an invasion of Afghanistan would not bring those who died on 9/11 back, nor would it help the situation.

When I heard that one No vote, I was given hope that at least one person agreed with me and understood that military force was the worst way to deal with the situation; more violence was not the response to violence. We didn't need to learn that lesson again, but it seems we are slow learners. Almost a trillion dollars and too many lives later, a majority of the American people now oppose our military presence in Afghanistan.

Still, Admiral Mullen testified in Congress this week about the need for more troops. When do we learn that throwing more troops and money at something that needed to be responded to as a crime is not going to solve an already too-complex-to-understand situation? Our presence has destabilized the region, killed innocent people, expanded the power of the Taliban and created the third most corrupt government in the world. We messed up Iraq and Afghanistan and have no idea what we are doing, either militarily or with regards to nation building. When do we admit we made a mistake and start untangling ourselves instead of digging a deeper mess?

Also, from Democracy Now!, "As Afghan War Enters 9th Year, Rep. Barbara Lee—Lone Lawmaker to Vote Against 2001 Authorization—Seeks to Block New Troop Surge."

Bill Ayers, Unrepentant Terrorist, Wrote 'Dreams from My Father' (?)

Anne Leary has the scoop, "Bill Ayers No Dream." (Via Memeorandum.)

William Jacobson identifies Anne Leary as a "straight shooter." See, "Will Obama Deny Bill Ayers' Accusation?" Plus, the Astute Bloggers, "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO KNOW THE TRUTH."

Related: Jack Cashill, "Breakthrough on the Authorship of Obama's 'Dreams'," "Evidence Mounts: Ayers Co-Wrote Obama's 'Dreams'," and "Who Wrote Dreams From My Father?"

Plus, David Weigel, "The ‘Ayers Wrote Obama’s Book’ Theorist Gets a Sympathizer."

Image Credit: Serr8d's Cutting Edge.

Obama's Disastrous Middle Ground on Afghanistan

Barack -- Worst. President. Ever. -- Obama has ruled out an Afghan troop increase for now, phrased differently at the New York Times, "Obama Rules Out Large Reduction in Afghan Force."

But I love this headline from the Los Angeles Times, " Obama Mulls Middle Ground in Afghanistan War Strategy" (via Memeorandum):

At a White House meeting aimed at tempering increasingly politicized debate over the war in Afghanistan, President Obama told congressional leaders Tuesday that he does not plan to dramatically reduce the American troop level or switch to a strictly counter-terrorism mission.

Asking for patience until he completes an assessment of the situation over the next few weeks, the president urged lawmakers to keep their minds open to a nuanced range of options.

Obama did not indicate to the bipartisan group whether he is leaning toward or against a significant troop escalation. Instead, he suggested he is looking at the middle range of the spectrum, somewhere between a major increase in forces and a large drawdown.

"The president reiterated that we need this debate to be honest and dispense with the straw man argument that this is about either doubling down or leaving Afghanistan," one senior administration official said after the meeting ended.

You know, Obama's certainly building his creds as the master of presidential disaster. Americans elect presidents to lead the country. Barack Obama in turn give them the back of his hand . In refusing to make tough decisions on the war, Obama is hoping to carve out squiggle room for 2012. He's betting that no matter what happens to the deployment -- and we well may lose in the absence of decisive leadership -- he'll be able to come down on one side or the other in the electoral debates on Afghanistan during the campaign.

Meanwhile, American troops are dying in a series of recent attacks that are being called some of the worst losses in the war. Disgraceful.

Pelosi on Shinseki in 2005: President Bush Should 'Listen to His Commanders in the Field'

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's on the hot seat this morning for her disparaging comments on General Stanley McChrystal. The Republcan National Campaign Committee reports, "General Pelosi Knows Better, Slams McChrystal":

After making pleas for action in Afghanistan, one would think Pelosi would be General McChrystal’s strongest ally:

“President Bush's failed Iraq policies have handed the terrorists a useful recruiting tool and limited our ability to respond to security challenges elsewhere in the region and the world.”

"Fighting the wrong war in Iraq has not ended the threat posed by al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan, nor has it brought Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to justice.” (Pelosi Statement, 9/05/2006)

Now, Pelosi is backpedaling on Afghanistan amidst increasing criticism from the radical left:

"I've also made it clear it's a very difficult vote to get from the members," she added. "Their constituents don't like an escalated war in Afghanistan. They'd like to see a different approach. But let's see what the president has to say." (Glenn Thrush, “Pelosi skeptical about Afghan surge, McChrystal,” Politico, 10/05/2009)

“General Pelosi has no problem sacrificing her own credibility as the Obama administration and liberals in Congress attempt to walk back a strategy they strongly advocated just months ago,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “Nancy Pelosi continues to make party politics a higher priority than our national security. Rather than listening to a four-star general’s assessments on Afghanistan, General Pelosi somehow believes she is better suited to craft our country’s military policy.”

Also, here's Nancy Pelosi's 2005 statement on how President's Bush should defer to General Eric Shinseki:

I remind you the president – when General Shinseki said that you need 300,000 troops in order to get the job done and come home safely and soon, he was fired. So this president saying that he listens to the commanders in the field, I don’t know about that.

And here's Nancy Pelosi on Charlie Rose last night, from Ruby Slippers, "Pelosi Opines on Afghanistan and McChrystal on Charlie Rose":

See also, Weasel Zippers, "RNC Urges Gen. McCrystal to Put Pelosi "in her Place"...Dems Respond by Saying The GOP is "80% Male, 100% White"... Wait, What Was Their Response? ...." Also, Greg Sargent, "Pelosi Rips McChrystal For Publicly Airing His Views On Afghanistan."

Clue to Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Nancy Pelosi's Second in Line to the Presidency

Glenn Thrush has this quote from Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz blasting Repubicans for their sexism:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who is close to Pelosi, could barely contain her anger.

"I think the place for a woman is at the top of the House of Representatives," said Wasserman Schultz.

"It's evidence they long for the days when a woman's place was in the kitchen. Now a woman is third in line for the presidency... But it's not surprising, coming from a party that's 80 percent male and 100 percent white," she added, referring to the composition of the House GOP conference.

Can someone get Wasserman Schultz a lifeline?

Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 makes the vice president first in line to the presidency should something happen to the president. Thus, the Speaker of the House is second in line to the president's office.

For more on the outrage, see Also, Gun Toting Liberal, "Speaker Of The House Paraphrased: “Bunch Of Cracker-Assed Testosterone-Filled Crackers Make Up The Red Side Of The Aisle In The House”." Also, Memeorandum.

Great News! Organizing for America Backs Anarcho-Communist G-20 Cadres

Well, it turns out that my post on Elliot Madison -- the suspected New York anarcho-communist recently arrested for tweeting police formations at Pittsburgh's G-20 protests -- stirred up a little backlash among the radical left-libertarians.

The notorious nihilist Dr. Hugo Hussein Ahmadinejad Biobrain has written a response. Dr. Biobrain sets out immediately -- like any good radical postmodernist -- to challenge my main source, the New York Post -- obviously objectionable for its capitalist-hegemonic owner Rupert Murdoch:

Donald goes as far as to title his post "Queens 'Tin Can' Anarchist Held One Pound of Liquid Mercury," based entirely on a claim written in the NY Post that mercury was found in his apartment ... I guess this is proof of the NY Times liberal-bias, as they failed to mention this important fact completely.

Okay, fine. Folks can just check with Madison's attorney, Martin Stolar, and his U.S. District Court motion for the return of items seized. The motion claims that the items have "no connection to any pending or continuing investigation ..." At page 22 it notes that police found "one (1) glass container of unknown gray substance wrapped in brown paper napkins with a rubber band." The New York Post accurately reported that item as one pound of liquid mercury. See Stolar's full motion here.

Madison and Stolar are interviewed at communist Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! network, "Twitter Crackdown: NYC Activist Arrested for Using Social Networking Site during G-20 Protest in Pittsburgh." And the Obamunists at Organizing for America are turning Elliot Madison into the movement's latest anarcho-communist cause célèbre, "Free Elliot Madison":

But there's more pushback at my post, for example from "Mike" at Rational Reasons (who's apparently a big Lew Rockwell fan):

You are dishonestly trying to call him a commie because your puny neo-con mind can't wrap itself around the thought that believers in the free market might choose to fight against the state with other [sic] who hold that same goal, even if they don't see eye to eye.

"Believers in the free market." Yeah. Right. A look over at "Mike's" blog shows a link to a Lew Rockwell post decrying "red state facism," and he adds:

This is just to clarify that while libertarians don't like Obama's policies (and neither do I), they also don't support the idiocy of the 9-12ers or the Tea Party movement.

Great. That puts "Mike" right in alliance with Cindy Sheehan, who mounted a neo-communist "March of the Dead" protest in front of the White House yesterday. And recall Lew Rockwell and Cindy Sheehan formed a kinky left-libertarian sex-romp alliance during 2005's "Camp Casey" protests against the Bush administration. See, "Mother Sheehan's Married Lover":

Sources have identified the boyfriend as former right-winger Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig Von Mises think tank located in Alabama, who is himself married.

"Mike" also argued at my post:

I suppose the Centre for Liberty, Mises, Naomi Wolfe, Lew Rockwell and Raason [sic] are all commies too for supporting the G20 protesters and speaking out against the egregious police state tactics taken by the cops in Pittsburgh?

Boy, what a bunch! But dude, you forgot Ron Paul, Andrew Sullivan, and Will Wilkinson! But hey, Reason's cool. While Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch gave the anti-American Ron Paul a big thumbs up in 2007, at least Welsh later denounced talk of a "liberal-libertarian" alliance.

But let's get something straight: It's long been known that the bulk of so-called libertarians have made common cause with the radical left. There's little practical distinction to be made between the paleo-libertarianism of folks like Justin Raimondo and the anti-American hatred of neo-communists of Code Pink and International ANSWER. Indeed, Raimondo, a frequent contributor to Lew Rockwell's blog, was a keynote speaker at the radical left's 2005 gathering in Berkelely, "Iraq: 5 Years Too Many." (Related: See, "Paul Craig Roberts and the Certifiable Right.") Add on top of that the so-called "capitalist anarchists," who -- oddly -- were out in force during Pittsburgh's anti-capitalist G-20 protests, and it's clear that the not only is the anarcho-leftist alliance fully ramping up for the destruction of America, they've even got some of the Obama administration's own Organizing for America goons on board.

Related: The Libertarian Communist Home Page:

Libertarian communists are also called anarchists. Anarchists are opposed to capitalism and the state, and they believe the working class must organize to overthrow capitalism and replace it with an egalitarian, libertarian system where each person's autonomy and individuality is fully realized and allowed to flourish, and human community and solidarity is fully realized.

Actually, that doesn't sound all that different from the manifesto at Tin Can Comms Collective, the anarchist outfit allied with Elliot Madison. But of course, while "anarcho-capitalist" Mike Gogulski is said to favor "free markets," the assertion flies in the face of his expressed hatred of America and American institutions:

I renounced my American citizenship in protest of what has become an American Empire, a nation that I see riding an express train to police state dictatorship with flags flying, anthems blaring and deluded, complicit masses cheering it along the track.

Okay. Right. No wonder the dude was out tweeting police mobilization directives for the anarcho-communists to avoid detection and arrest. What a great guy!

Tensions Rise Over Afghan War Strategy

From the Los Angeles Times, "Tensions Rise Over Afghanistan War Strategy" (via Memeorandum):

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Monday that President Obama's advisors should keep their guidance private, in effect admonishing the top commander in Afghanistan for publicly advocating an approach requiring more troops even as the White House reassesses its strategy.

The comment by Gates came a day after Obama's national security advisor, James L. Jones, said that military commanders should convey their advice through the chain of command -- a reaction to Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's public statements in support of his troop-intensive strategy for stabilizing Afghanistan.

The exchanges suggested some disarray in the Obama administration's attempts to forge a new policy on Afghanistan and underscored wide differences among top officials over the correct approach.

In May, Obama tapped McChrystal, a special forces commander, to take charge of the Afghanistan effort and institute a sweeping counterinsurgency strategy. Obama and McChrystal spoke Friday aboard Air Force One on an airport tarmac in Copenhagen, and White House officials did not detail what the two talked about.

Still, Pentagon officials dismissed suggestions Monday that the 55-year-old commander was in any professional jeopardy. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said it would be "absurd" to think McChrystal had lost favor or standing with the administration.

Gates' comments, in an address before an Assn. of the U.S. Army meeting, came in the midst of what the Pentagon chief called a "hyper-partisan" debate over Afghanistan policy. Many Republicans and even some leading Democrats demand the president comply with commanders' troop requests.

The deaths of eight U.S. service members in an insurgent attack in a remote area over the weekend fueled the political fight. At least one prominent Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, argued that the failure to send more troops would lead to additional deaths.

With public opinion turning against the war, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will meet today with congressional leaders. The president is scheduled to chair a strategy session Wednesday with top advisors.

Gates, demanding room for the administration's deliberations, said the resulting decisions would be among the most important of Obama's presidency.

I'll say.

The left is seeking to distort General McCrystal's comments into a constitutional crisis of civil/military relations. But see Michael O'Hanlon, "A General Within Bounds." Also, Jules Crittenden, "Consulter In Chief."

Plus, don't miss Michael Yon, "Two Firefights: One Video."