Obama To Remove US Combat Troops in Iraq by Keeping them there 14 Months Longer!!!

So, sources are saying that Obama will remove US combat troops from Iraq by August 2010—with all US troops out by December 2011.

Hmmm…  Hope and Change!!!  Wooohoooo!!!!

Oh, wait a minute…  Uhm, didn’t Bush already sign an agreement to pull out all of those troops by December 2011?

You betcha’!!!  Even the ultra-Libtard Commie News Network reported on it right HERE.  It was in the works for over a year and was signed back in November.

Sorry, Oh Great Dark Overlord, but you’re not fooling any of us by taking credit for this.

And, not only that, but pay particular attention to the withdrawal date for “combat troops” – August 2010!!!

That’s alarming…  Why?  Because Bush had signed an agreement with Iraq to pull out all combat troops by June 30, 2009!!!

Yup, it’s mentioned in the same CNN article right HERE.

Gee, Obama has actually added fourteen months to the combat troops’ deployment in Iraq!!!

Yea!!!!  Way to go, Oh Great One!  Fourteen months longer!!!  Woooohooo!!!  Hope and Change!!!  Woooohoooo!!!!!!

Officials: US troops to exit Iraq by August 2010
Feb 24, 2009 – via MyWayNews
By PAMELA HESS and ANNE GEARAN

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama plans to order that all U.S. combat troops be withdrawn from Iraq by August 2010, administration officials said Tuesday, ending the war that defined his upstart presidential campaign three months later than he had promised.

Obama’s plan would pull out all combat troops 19 months after his inauguration, although he had promised repeatedly during the 2008 campaign that he would withdraw them 16 months after taking office. That schedule, based on removing roughly one brigade a month, was predicated on commanders determining that it would not endanger U.S. troops left behind or Iraq’s fragile security.

Pledging to end the war in 16 months helped to build enormous grass-roots support for Obama’s White House bid.

The withdrawal plan – an announcement could come as early as this week – calls for leaving a large contingent of troops behind, between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, to advise and train Iraqi security forces and to protect U.S. interests.

Also staying beyond the 19 months would be intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft, according to two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public.

The complete withdrawal of American forces will take place by December 2011, the period by which the U.S. agreed with Iraq to remove all troops.

[See?  Sneaky little buggers those Obamite sycophant-Libtard-pseudo-journalists are!  They subtly threw that in there without ever mentioning that it was the Bush Administration’s agreement with the Iraqis.  That way, uninformed readers will think Obama did it…]

A senior White House official said Tuesday that Obama is at least a day away from making a final decision. He further said an announcement on Wednesday was unlikely, but he said that Obama could discuss Iraq during a trip to North Carolina on Friday.

[…]

Needless to say, the rest of the article makes no mention of the Bush Administration’s agreement with Iraq.  And, it soon digressed into a Bush bashing party and an orgy of fatuous sycophancy centered on the Obamessiah.  So, no need to post the rest of it.

However, if you can stomach it, you can read the rest of the article by clicking HERE.

Californian with Ties To Al-Qaeda Refused to Help FBI

No worries, though; CAIR is in full-on cover-up mode and is engaged in a game of blaming the FBI for arresting him.

This updates our previous post HERE.

By the way, you gotta’ just love the way the MSM Libtards spin this story with the following deceptive headline:

Man with alleged terror ties aided police in 2007
By GILLIAN FLACCUS and AMY TAXIN Associated Press Writers
Posted: 02/24/2009 – via San Jose Mercury News

SANTA ANA, Calif.—The alleged brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard charged with lying about alleged ties to terrorist groups on his citizenship application reported a Muslim convert for making terrorist threats two years earlier, according to court documents.

Ahmadullah Niazi, 34, was scheduled to appear in U.S. District Court on Tuesday for a bail hearing after his arrest last week on charges of perjury, procurement of naturalization unlawfully, passport fraud and making a false statement. He could face up to 35 years in prison if convicted of all charges.

In 2007, Niazi testified on behalf of the Islamic Center of Irvine, which was seeking a restraining order against a new Muslim convert who spoke repeatedly of jihad and organizing terrorist attacks, court documents said.

Police reports also indicate that Niazi, an Afghan native and a naturalized U.S. citizen, was one of several people at the Islamic Center who contacted police after being bothered by the convert.

Shortly after the center was granted the restraining order, Niazi said he was approached by an FBI agent who accused him of lying in that case and pressured him to become an informant, said Issa Edah-Tally, president of the Islamic Center of Irvine.

[Yup,  I have no doubt Niazi was lying.   Note how they are quick to point out that he was a “new” Muslim.  They probably suspected him of being an informant and wanted to keep him away from the Islamic center, lest he uncover something… ]

Edah-Tally said Niazi told him the FBI agent questioned him at a friend’s home last April and “used unnecessary tactics to try and recruit him as an informant.”

[Oh, he means that the FBI agent asked nicely (necessary tactics) and when Niazi refused, the FBI pulled out the big guns and laid out the case against him (unnecessary tactics).  Sorry, buddy, but because you refused the polite request, it was necessary to up the ante’.    Nothing “unnecessary” at all about that. ]

O’Reilly and Beck Interview Wilders

H/T – Memaw

Obama’s Policies Aren’t Right Because His Principles Are Wrong

H/T – MeMaw

Our Recovery Plan Is an ‘Obamination’

By Jon Kraushar – Fox News
Communications Consultant

I believe the president’s recovery plan is an “Obamination.” What do I mean by that? Namely the president’s plan is misdirected change. No matter how good President Obama’s intentions are — sad to say — his policies aren’t right because his principles are wrong.

They rouse the very principles that caused the American Revolution, beginning with resentment against an imperious government that overtaxes, overspends, over-regulates and overrules any dissent. The $787-billion stimulus bill was rammed through Congress so quickly that lawmakers (and the public) didn’t even have the time to read its entire 1,079 pages.

Because principles have consequences the president needs to better explain why his various bailouts punish the prudent, reward the reckless, and flagrantly violate the principle that people must live with the consequences of their personal decisions.

Furthermore, the stimulus and another trillion-and-a-half dollars in other government economic “rescue” efforts (for banks, Wall Street firms, automakers, insurers and all the people who can’t pay their mortgages) stretches to the breaking point the moral and economic code most Americans believe in. Those who have acted responsibly, paid their bills, saved their money and followed the law are bailing out those who haven’t. If one were to update the battle cry of the colonists who protested “no taxation without representation,” today it would be “no stimulation with so much confiscation.”

President Obama held a “Fiscal Responsibility Summit” at the White House today and he will continue to make his case tomorrow night when he speaks to a Joint session of Congress. On Thursday, the president will release his 2010 budget.

Because principles have consequences the president needs to better explain why his various bailouts punish the prudent, reward the reckless, and flagrantly violate the principle that people must live with the consequences of their personal decisions.

Delaying The Day Of Reckoning Delays The Days of Repair

Government “Protecting” Your Children. . .From the Ability to Defend Themselves

Another great article written by Kurt Hofmann – an ex-paratrooper who was paralyzed in a car crash in 2002.  Also, be sure to check out his article in today’s paper by CLICKING HERE:

‘Protecting’ children . . . from the ability to defend themselves

by Kurt Hofmann – St. Louis Examiner

Photo by Oleg Volk

Although not many gun bills have yet been introduced this congressional session, there have been a couple. One, H.R. 45, introduced by U.S. Representative Bobby Rush, (D-IL) has been well covered by my colleague (Qualifying firearms, Kill (the) bill, Kill (the) bill – volume two, Kill (the) bill – volume three). Today I’ll look at H.R. 257, the “Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2009.”

“But surely,” some might say, “you don’t oppose taking whatever measures are necessary to keep guns out of the hands of children–do you?” Actually, I do. No–it’s not that I want to create an army of child soldiers, or even that I am any less horrified than anyone else by school shootings, or by the rare but horribly tragic incidents of children finding guns and accidentally shooting themselves or someone else.

Before going into detail about what I think of this bill, though, let’s take a look at it. It was introduced by U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), and here’s the summary (actually, this is my excerpt of the summary provided by govtrack.us):

Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2009 – Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) raise the age of handgun eligibility to 21 (currently, 18); and (2) prohibit persons under age 21 from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, with exceptions.

Prohibits keeping a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises knowing or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child: (1) is capable of gaining access to it; and (2) will use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Requires the parent or legal guardian of a child to ensure that a child attending a gun show is accompanied by an adult.

Keep in mind that “rais[ing] the age of handgun eligibility to 21” changes nothing about the age at which a person can buy a handgun from a licensed dealer. A 19-year-old (for example) can currently possess one, but is already prohibited from buying one in a gun shop. Presumably, the proposed more restrictive legislation is intended to close the “loophole” of people who are old enough to bear our military’s mightiest weapons against our nation’s enemies being able to have a .38 caliber revolver to defend themselves from the predatory thugs here at home.