Two Commanders, No Chief

The wrong commander resigned. That was my first thought on hearing news of the meeting between Gen. McChrystal and our Commander-in-Chief (my second thought was Joe Barton just got a lucky break). Given the story of the two men and their achievements in office, what fair-minded individual could disagree?

One of these commanders walks through the streets of Afghanistan without a flak jacket, kneels down in the mud and gets dirty with his soldiers, runs seven miles a day, and has earned the respect of his men as well as that of the elected Afghan government. The other commander has played 40 rounds of golf in a little over a year, hosted parties with Hollywood celebs and Paul McCartney, played basketball in Afghanistan, kneeled on the beach without getting dirty for photo-ops, and has lost the respect of President Karzai, not to mention his own men, one of whom he has now dismissed. But Obama thinks we need to unify behind... him?

Liberals on MS-DNC were already trying to spin President Obama's swift decision to remove McChrystal as Truman-like. Truman Capote maybe. He may have dithered for months on whether to send more soldiers to the battlefield, but this president wastes no time when it comes to personal vendettas. If Obama's thin-skinned response to hearsay and off-the-cuff comments detailed by an anti-war lefty writer in a rock n' roll magazine that features Lady Gaga on the cover is any indication, this is a low point for the presidency and the War on Terror. And perhaps Rolling Stone (though that bar is set pretty low).

Of course, President Obama has gone out of his way to eliminate the phrases War on Terror and War on Islamic Extremism to declare War on Big Oil - so long as you ignore the fact that his administration is in bed with BP and would love nothing more than to ignore the clean-up in the gulf and instead pass a highly partisan, political "solution." The battle in Afghanistan can't be won politically, there's no game-changing leftist legislation to push through the Democratic Congress whether it goes swimmingly or falls to pieces, so Obama considers it a distraction. If calling it "Overseas Contingency Operations" doesn't say I don't care in the slightest, perhaps another Fourth of July wiener roast with the "moderate" Taliban will do the trick. Or more trials for enemy combatants picked up on the battlefield. Or allowing a mosque at the site of 9/11.

I haven't read the Rolling Stone article for the same reason I haven't picked up Mad Magazine or attempted a keg stand in 15 years. Because I graduated from high school. My understanding, however, from various accounts by ninth graders who have read it is it depicts sophomoric behavior, especially some of the comments by McChrystal's aides, but nowhere does it come close to insubordination. And how could it? McChrystal and Obama support the same counterinsurgency policies, agree on the same rules of engagement, and McChrystal admits he even voted for Obama - over war hero John McCain mind you. So why the heck did he replace him? He should have given the man a medal.

The ironic thing is in picking Gen. Petraeus to take over, Obama has actually ceded more civilian power to the military. If Petraeus challenges the president's policies in Afghanistan, Obama can't exactly turn around and replace him, too. That would look erratic and ineffective. I would actually like to see Petraeus change the rules of engagement and give our soldiers a fighting chance. But mostly, I'd like win this war before the president plays another 40 rounds of golf. Or hosts Lady Gaga in the White House.

Of Muslims, Christians, and Tea Parties

Turns out Faisal Shahzad is not a tea partier. Who knew? Certainly not the kos kids. Neal Boortz commented on this Daily Kos poll from a few days ago, which has to be seen to be believed:

THE TIMES SQUARE BOMBER WILL END UP BEING:

An al Qaeda terrorist  ---4%
An American sympathetic to al Qaeda ---5%
A militia wackjob  ---30%
A teapartier ---32%
A religious wackjob (making an anti-abortion statement) ---9%

As usual, the kos kids were 180 degrees away from being right, but it illustrates perfectly the delusional, head-in-the-sand behavior of the Left. Sadly, the Obama administration, Hollywood elites, and the mainstream media all subscribe to this same line of bizarro world thinking. 

That translates into roughly 71% of Olbermann viewers predicting the terror suspect is more likely to be a conservative "wackjob" than an al Qaeda terrorist (who for some reason isn't listed as a wackjob). These are the same progressive Democrats who were some of Barack Obama's biggest supporters for president. Any questions?

There hasn't been one act of violence let alone an arrest at the hundreds of Tea Party protests attended by millions of Americans, while there is an unquestionable and overwhelming history of attacks against our country by Islamic extremists. But if you were an alien who just landed on earth yesterday, you would have never heard of a Muslim terrorist and would probably be trying to figure out why our government is at war with Tea Partiers. What does it say about a society, and in particular the Democratic Party, when perception is so far from reality?

Remember these headlines from a month ago?

Christian Militia Taken Down

Agent Infiltrated Christian Militia

Christian Militia Suspects Ordered Jailed

Group Target of FBI Raids is Christian Militia

Christian Militia Accused of Plotting to Kill Cops

Geez, I wonder which word stands out the most. Nevermind I had never even heard of a Christian militia before, and I live in a state that proudly clings to its guns and religion. These arrested individuals have little in common with Christianity, but the way the media reported it, you would have thought there were thousands of these radical groups springing up overnight and Christianity was turning some dark corner. Not hardly.

Now let's look at the headlines about Shahzad, the failed Times Square bomber:

Accused New York Bomber Appears to Act Alone

Times Square Bomber Charged in Terror Plot

Pakistan Native Admits to Times Square Bomb

Times Square Bomber Motive is a Mystery

Pakistan Emigre in Connecticut Arrested as Times Square Bomber

Broker: NY Bomb Suspect Didn't Like Bush

Notice anything missing? Just like the case of Major Nadal Hasan, we have a Muslim fanatic with ties to the Taliban practicing jihad against America. Yet none of these media outlets dares to mention his religious affiliation. "Oh no!" one thinks upon reading this. What's going on in our beloved Connecticut that is feeding extremism? Or is it Bush again, up to his old man tricks? The media and the Left continue to go out of their way to make excuses for the predictable behavior of an Islamic terrorist, and one CNN anchor even wondered if the foreclosure of the suspect's house might have triggered the event. Are you kidding me?!

It's now official. You have a better chance of seeing a Sasquatch than the word Muslim in any report of terrorism by the mainstream media. But the word isn't just missing from the headline of these stories. It's missing from the entire texts. It's been voluntarily omitted by all the biggest news providers. This is as bad or worse than the South Park episode where Comedy Central censored out every mention of Mohammad for fear of violent retaliation by... who exactly? Surely not Muslim extremists. According to the mainstream media, they don't exist.

Are progressives so uncomfortable with evil that they prefer to ignore it altogether? Or are they so bigoted and brainwashed that they think it only exists in white Christians who own guns? We have a complete disconnect here with the Left fixated on their own imaginary boogieman while political correctness whitewashes the real culprit of extremism out of existence.

Who needs Pravda? We seem to be doing just fine hypnotizing ourselves.