Sarah Palin on Zero & The Afghani Decision

Palin Supports: "Finally, A Decision for Afghanistan"
Palin posts a statement:

At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan. In the end, he decided to endorse a “surge” for Afghanistan, applying the counterinsurgency principles of “clear, hold and build” that worked so well in Iraq. Given that he opposed the surge in Iraq, it is even more welcome that he now supports a surge in Afghanistan.
This approach means, as Senator John McCain has noted, that “We now have an opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus in support of a vital national security priority: defeating Al-Qaeda and its violent extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ensuring that these countries never again serve as bases for terrorist attacks against America and our allies.”
We should be clear, however, that fewer troops mean assuming more risk. Talk of an exit date also risks sending the wrong message. We should be in Afghanistan to win, not to set a timetable for withdrawal that signals a lack of resolve to our friends, and lets our enemies believe they can wait us out. As long as we’re in to win, and as long as troop level decisions are based on conditions on the ground and the advice of our military commanders, I support President Obama’s decision.

Washinton Examiner Morning Email Blast

When Zero gives General McChrystal what he needs, Zero is simply performing his duty as CiC and that should be acknowledged; but make no mistake, Zero is out of his league. He is lost, he is dangerous and the greedy dhimmis running him are trying to use it to their advantage.

Washington Examiner Political Digest
Byron York - Obama keeps his Afghan promise, but Dems crumble
At West Point tonight, when Barack Obama formally announces he is sending tens of thousands more American troops to Afghanistan, he'll be doing so against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party. Sending more troops will fulfill a key Obama campaign pledge, but it will also expose a deep rift in the party — and highlight its habit of dissembling on the war.


Michael O'Hanlon - Four reasons for 40,000 more troops
President Obama has apparently made his difficult decision about the idea of adding four combat brigades and a total of up to 40,000 more American troops to the mission in Afghanistan. Obama has already added about 30,000 troops this year, bringing the U.S. total close to 68,000 and the overall NATO/foreign presence to about 105,000. The corruption in the Karzai government complicates the decision. But there are four main reasons why on balance the president is right to support Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal if, as expected, he promises to provide almost all those added forces when he addresses the nation tonight.

Susan Ferrechio - Dems call for quick passage of health plan, but voters resist
The Senate began debate on an $848 billion bill to overhaul health care in America, with Democrats declaring the nation cannot wait for reform even as poll numbers signal strong opposition to the plan.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the chamber would work through every weekend this month to get the bill completed, a task that will involve debating hundreds of amendments that will likely bring significant changes to the legislation before it is ready for a final vote.

Mark Hemingway - Is a lawsuit finally forcing transparency at the Department of Labor?
IAfter stonewalling several attempts at transparency, a lawsuit and a some much-deserved public shaming may finally be spurring the Department of Labor to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests. Last week, I noted that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation had filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court because the Department of Labor had been totally unresponsive to their FOIA attempts to get information about any legal and financial relationships, as well as communications Obama administration labor appointees might have had with union groups. Following that post, a well-placed source just passed on this email:

Come to Norfolk 7 December Defend the Defenders

Folks will have a good chance to show those Navy SEALs how much they are appreciated and supported in their decision to be judged by a jury of their peers.

Scuttlebutt has it that a group of Americans with enough sense to know a rotten deal when they see one are going to be gathering in Norfolk this coming Saturday.

Stay tuned.

You Want Unprecedented, Here it Is

If this happens the backlash against the US Government by its citizens will be historic. We will not stand by and allow our Warriors to be tried as criminals for protecting us from terrorists. This is unconscionable.

No; wait a minute...you know what this is?

UNPRECEDENTED. Zero appears to have adopted that word for his latest round of Bravo Sierra, and it never seems to apply adequately to anything he uses it for.

It certainly applies here. UNPRECEDENTED!!!!!!!!!!!

UNREAL. Obama May Allow US Soldiers to be Tried in the Hague
Gateway Pundit

Unreal. Team Obama may allow US soldiers to be tried in the Hague for war crimes. The Wall Street Journal reported, via Jihad Watch:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed “great regret” in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague.

The ICC’s chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court’s authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction—at least with respect to Afghanistan.

Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute—the ICC’s founding treaty—all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC’s oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a “preliminary examination” into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock.

“We have to check if crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide have been committed in Afghanistan,” Mr. Ocampo told me. “There are serious allegations against the Taliban and al Qaeda and serious allegations about warlords, even against some who are connected with members of the government.” Taking up his inquiry of Allied soldiers, he added, “there are different reports about problems with bombings and there are also allegations about torture.”

It was clear who the targets of these particular inquiries are but the chief prosecutor shied away from spelling it out.

Asked repeatedly whether the examination of bombings and torture allegations refers to NATO and U.S. soldiers, Mr. Ocampo finally stated that “we are investigating whoever commits war crimes, including the group you mentioned.”