Obama Ineligibility Case Headed to Supreme Court

Despite the fact that many in the media continue to mock "The Birthers," there are dozens of good reasons for the public to support the petitioners in the Kerchner et al vs. Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al case. We need to be steadfast in our resolve to question why his documents are being kept hidden. We need to spread the word as these petitioners continue their fight to expose the fact that if Obama's biological father was Barack Obama Sr., then there is no way that Obama Jr. could be a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

New Ad - Kerchner v Obama Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court - Washington Times National Weekly edition - pg 5

Excerpt:

Obama was born a British Subject and is still such to this day. Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. Obama has never conclusively proved he was born in Hawaii. Obama's paternal family in Kenya, Kenyan government officials, and newspapers in Kenya say he was born in Kenya. Obama's maternal grandmother likely falsely and illegally registered him as born in Hawaii to get him, her new foreign-born grandson, U.S. Citizenship.

Link to read and download newest ad:

History shows us that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office, e.g., Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was a prime example. After he was sworn in and serving as Governor, the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office, after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected.

http://history.nd.gov/exhibits/governors/governors19.html

In case you are STILL a victim of the liberal left media of mass deception, which has covered this issue in a one-sided way, then I suggest that you read the links in the excerpt above to familiarize yourself with what the lamestream media refuses to reveal regarding this issue.

I am trying to remember where I read or heard this, but there was one judge in one case (there are several Obama ineligibility cases still active) who stated that [paraphrased] 'to reveal this information would be an embarrassment for the pResident.'

What???? Is that a "lawful" statement or an emotional, political ideological, and social opinion?

The term "embarrassment" is very interesting. There could be all sorts of reasons to use that term. However, I do not recall any judges stating that certain revelations about past presidents deserve to be hidden because of "embarrassment." Do you?

I applaud the courage of these plaintiffs to pursue this case all the way to the Supreme Court! That is why I continue to post and spread the word about this extremely important issue!

Hat Tip:

A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers


*******

Also see this YouTube video:

Proof Obama Admits He Was Born In Kenya

*******

Several brief videos where Obama - from his own mouth and in his own words - admits he was born in Kenya!

OBAMA CONFESSES HIS BIRTH PLACE IS KENYA, AFRICA.

Obama ADMITS Born in Kenya!!!

*******

The following video link may appear to not be connected to Obama's ineligibility issue. However, within the first six minutes, I can point out a deception that is being raised by the creator and narrator of the video.

Of course, I do not agree with everything in the following video, I present it here for people to go over to YouTube and view - even if you just view the first six minutes or so which is where I make my point, anyway. It has been viewed over 7,525,349 times!!!

In all honesty, it is difficult for me to get past the first few minutes when the narrator makes false accusations against President Bush.

The Obama Deception HQ Full length version [Note: The video is 1:53:40 long!]

What is truth and what are lies within this video? Well, I can share one lie. It is the opinion of the narrator and creator of the film that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

From "The Next World War: What Prophecy Reveals About Extreme Islam and the West," by Grant R. Jeffrey -

What Happened to Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction?

VX nerve gas, a WMD, is a binary gas that can be prepared only with complex chemical warfare technology, equipment, and experienced scientists. It is known from Iraqi admissions and the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors that Iraq possessed more than five hundred tons of the precursor chemicals required to produce VX-nerve gas weapons. Iraq claimed to have destroyed these materials but never provided proof.

Israeli intelligence analysts and key players in the U.S. intelligence community, including retired U.S. Air Force Gen. James Clapper, declared that huge amounts of Iraqi WMD were transferred to Syria just before the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told Congress in testimony in 2003 that U.S. satellite surveillance revealed substantial vehicular traffic in convoys from Iraq to Syria in February and March 2003. Clapper said that the intelligence community determined the convoys contained missiles and WMD components that were banned by the U.J. Security Council.5

The former deputy undersecretary of defense, John A. Shaw, revealed what actually happened to Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction. "The short answer to the question of where the WMDs Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon... They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz units out of uniform, that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence." 6

During the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1989 and 1990, Russia repeatedly used this type of "emergency exit" planned removal of WMD and other sophisticated military equipment from former Warsaw Pact allies in Eastern Europe, as well as from former Soviet republics such as the Ukraine and Kazakstan. A variety of respected sources, including Shaw and Saddam Hussein's former top general, Georges Sada, have confirmed that Russian Spetsnaz troops coordinated the removal of Iraq's WMD to Syria by large truck convoys and aircraft in the period just before the invasion of Iraq in April 2003. 7

The question that will occur to most readers is why the Bush Administration endured countless attacks on the credibility of its prewar claims about Iraq's WMD and never publicly revealed the significant evidence that points to the removal of these weapons to Syria. According to both Shaw and Sada, the Bush administration's desire to protect Russia from international embarrassment motivated it to suppress this intelligence in the hope that Russia would assist America in limited Iran's and North Korea's plans to achieve a nuclear warhead.

We now know how badly THAT hope didn't pan out! Russia is actively helping Iran (admittedly, I don't know about them helping North Korea) and with the Obama admin., through it's extremely weak foreign policy, is not actively doing anything to halt Iran from getting nuclear weapons! It appears that Israel will, once again, need to come to the rescue of the world and destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. The question is when...

Footnotes:

5 "U.S. Intelligence Consensus: Iraqi WMD Shipped to Syria," World Tribune, October 30, 2003, www.worldtribune.com/wholdtribune/WTARC/2003/ss_syrua_19_29.html/. Also posted at www.ualm.org.au/Syria_Files.asp?display=content&id=61.

6 Kenneth Timmerman, "Ex-Pentagon Official Says Russia Moved Saddam's WMDS," Newsmax, February 19, 2006, www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/ex-Pentagon.htm.

7 For more on this, see Georges Sada, Saddam's Secrets (Nashville: Integrity Publishers, 2006).

*******

Glenn Beck is right about the need to "question with boldness" and about "doing your own research." The over 7 million viewers of "The Obama Deception" have been fed some propaganda about President Bush and the WMDs that were in Iraq, after all!

Now, I'm not claiming that there isn't any true information in that Infowars video, but I am pointing out that sometimes, a person's ideology can blind them to the truth in some situations and cases.

This is why I like to study the Bible and prophecy. I know that I can count on the TRUTH contained within its pages!

Islam "House of Truce" by Barry Soetoro?

As if there hasn't been enough to worry about with this corrupt, horrendously clueless ObamaFRAUD ethics and morality challenged administration, now we are also learning of a highly disturbing, not-so-secret covert intention being worked out behind the scenes - under the radar of most of the American people and, of course, the clueless Lamestream media.

I will just post the entire blog post from The Betrayal and those who care to comment - please do so.

Christine

*******

Quote:

Taqqiya Muslim Barry Soetoro - Submission

Posted on February 4th, 2009 by David-Crockett

I fully agree with the Obama File conclusions reached at the end of the article and in particular the following line “…Trained as a Muslim, Obama knows that in Islam, the world is divided into two parts — Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb…” is most certainly accurate, I would however want to add the following observation. Barack/Barry Obama/Soetoro seems to be very well versed in the Muslim practice/tactic of Taqqiya whereby the Kufar can be deceived into believing she/he is sa[f]e from Islam imperialism. Barry who indeed knows the distinction between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb and in applying Taqqiya is concealing his aim to integrate our Country into the Dar al-Islam. He will attempt to achieve the integration by initially mov[ing] towards transforming the US into the state of Dar al Suhl (House of Truce - a state in which a non-muslim country negotiated a peaceful/subservient co-existence with Muslims by means of surrendering into Dhimmitude) once this is achieved the next step will be integration into the Dar al-Islam. Mark my words.

- David Crockett

The Obama File reports:

Obama was working with Arab intermediaries to establish an unofficial dialogue with Al Qaida long before the election, according to a report in the Feb. 4th edition of Geostrategy-Direct.com.
Al Qaida has offered what has been described as a truce (hudna) in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, according to the report.

Obama has deemed the U.S. reconciliation with the Muslim world, including Iran, as his main foreign policy goal, sources quoted in the report said. Obama has been aided by several Persian Gulf Arab Muslims with ties to Al Qaida’s leadership in Pakistan.

On his first day in office, Obama ordered the shutdown of the U.S. Navy prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where 245 Al Qaida members are detained, saying, “Can we guarantee that they’re not going to try to participate in another attack? No.” But he’ll let them free nonetheless.
Obama spoke about his own ties to the Muslim world:

“Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect,” Obama said. “I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.”

“My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy — we sometimes make mistakes — we have not been perfect.”

Whose job is it to communicate to this fool that al Qaeda is OUR enemy?

Trained as a Muslim, Obama knows that in Islam, the world is divided into two parts — Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.

Dar al-Islam literally means the “House of Peace” which is all the lands conquered and subjugated by Islam.

Dar al-Harb literally means the “House of War” which is all the lands currently not conquered by Islam.

Islam’s chief goal is to eventually conquer and subjugate all the lands of Dar al-Harb into one territory called Dar al-Islam. Only after all people and all lands of the world have been conquered and have submitted to Islam is there to be “peace” in the world. /quote

Hat Tip: The Betrayal

*******

In a related article, The Obama File reveals the Bogus POTUS as being willing to "Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory." Read and weep:

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory



CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus, supported by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to pullout all US combat troops from Iraq within 18 months at an Oval Office meeting on January 21, sources have said.

But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.

Obama's decision to override Petraeus' recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including General Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.

A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilizing public opinion against Obama's decision.

Petraeus was visibly unhappy when he left the Oval Office, according to one of the sources. A White House staffer present at the meeting was quoted by the source as saying: "Petraeus made the mistake of thinking he was still dealing with George Bush instead of with Barack Obama."

Obama, who was never even a boy scout, has the arrogance to believe he knows better than his generals. He prefers to take his military strategy from the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Media Benjamin (Code Pink crazy lady).

I REALLY miss George W. Bush...already.

Hat Tips:

Pajamas Media: Works and Days

The Obama File - Latest Obamanations

*******
Update At 6:07 a.m. PT:

The following is one of those WOW comments that hits the nail on the head on many of the issues being handled VERY BADLY by the Bogus POTUS and his cronies-in-crime administration:

The following quote is from the comment section of "Pajamas Media: Works and Days" -

21. cfbleachers:


"Even the fawning media–that is responsible in some way for the crisis, given that they chose to be Pravda-like in encouraging the messianic style that got a haughty Obama in his present mess–will soon start bailing in efforts to restore their last fides."

In short, no…they won’t. Sorry, VDH.

Great essay, though. Yes, I expect that quite a few creepy people are presently sharpening swords and daggers. I see the dangers of swaggering into town and tossing in an ante in a “mixed rules” game. I see even graver dangers to America from those who deal.

1)There is a “mixed rules” game peril in foreign affairs with the “creepies” you mention. They see compromise as weakness. They see conciliation as cowardice. They will use apology as a rallying cry and recruiting tool. They will abide by no convention, they will use our adherence to convention as a weapon against us. Saul Alinsky with nuclear warheads, they will use our own rulebook to crush us. And they will do so without real compromise, real conciliation and sans apology.

2)”Mixed rules” apply with respect to entrenched media coverage of virtually every important issue of the day. The leftist “message” is king and we are all its subjects. The Trilogy of the Book of Slander co-written by Hollywood, the entrenched media and academia has the US and Israel as its main targets. Non-leftists, including Republicans of all stripes, conservatives without exception and moderates who dare to cross the line…virtually anyone who disagrees (see, ie., Liebermann and Billary)will be viciously attacked.

The truth is an ancient artifact. It is being buried beneath a storm of debris that is relentless and unceasing. We have been sold out for this “message” and we continue to this day to be buried, inch by inch, under its dirt. There is absolutely zero reason to believe, no matter what happens as a consequence (and there have been several major negative consequences already), that it will change one iota. There are mixed rules in our information stream, and the three dealers at the main tables are crooked.

3)Political cover for leftists is rampant and widespread. They can shirk any burden, secretly meet any foe, abandon any friend, drive up any price in order to pursue the leftist implementation of statism here and abroad. No act is beneath them. Logan Act violations by ex-Presidents abound. Meetings with Soviet leaders, Viet Cong leaders, arch-enemies, sworn enemies…in direct contravention of our declared foreign policy…are met with a collective burial of facts. News gathering editorialists have Soviet handlers. Stringers are plants for Arab dictators. Cable news networks intentionally downplay a dictator’s evils. Wire services photoshop and stage pictures. International news outlets fake the “scorecard” to make one tiny nation’s attempt to survive look grossly unfair. Leftists here at home and abroad are dealing a “mixed rules” crooked game.

4)Closer to home, the armor shell of leftist media covering for sins of democrats is appalling. I don’t see how the manner in which we impose our shared burden can any longer be said to equate to “representative”. This nation once stood up to taxation without representation of a different set of unfair rules, but not entirely dissimilar.

Somehow we have allowed the system to act like a mafia loan shark for the little guy. Imposing thuggery upon the entrepreneur who struggles to provide jobs and a spark to the economy with chokehold penalties and kneecap busting interest for minor infractions, while the “insiders” play with an entirely different deck.

The IRS as mafia hit man going after the little guy for not paying his “protection” money, while they “oops” didn’t play by the same rules, is a bit much to take. This is an institution that ought to be dismantled. The entire purpose was not to confound people, consume them, then carve up their stolen goodies for lords, nobles and viceroys. The leftists, especially the extremists like Pelosi would crush the economy in order to advance statism, upon the broken backs of small businesses.

The IRS as a weapon in a class warfare being waged by leftists, where the “mixed rules” are open and obvious and provided cover by the Slander Trilogy is an assault on our way of life.

5)We are in a rigged game, let me rephrase that…we are in a number of rigged games. They are being played simultaneously…and we are being dealt cards from the bottom. We keep trying to play by the rules according to Hoyle. That is what the enemies of truth, honor, liberty and freedom, here and abroad…are counting on.

And no, my esteemed friend…VDH, I don’t see any of that changing any time soon.


Feb 4, 2009 - 3:12 am

*******
Update:

Stop The ACLU has a post up with several links about this, too.

Thank A Vet Today

In honor of Veteran's Day, I thought that I would pass along a link to a wonderful organization called Operation Gratitude .

We have much to be thankful for in this nation. And, we owe our freedom to all of the Veterans who have fought for that freedom ever since we became a nation. I salute each and every one of you. Thank you - for all you have done for the United States of America!

One of my favorite photos is this one of a soldier with a young Iraqi boy, standing on his boot.



Here are some letters from the website:

To Operation Gratitude:
My husband was feeling very down yesterday when I spoke to him. Today when he called me on the computer, his whole attitude had changed. He was smiling ear to ear. He had received a box from Operation Gratitude. He had to show me everything that was sent to him. He loved everything. He had decorations hanging up in his room for the Fourth of July and he had a teddy bear sitting on his bed. You turned his whole day around. Just a few little things that reminded him of home and let him know that there were people who cared brought him great joy. I am so grateful for your support.
Army Wife, C.P.

Dear Operation Gratitude,
I'm the wife of a deployed soldier. When I spoke to him today he said his entire unit each individually received a package from your organization. I wanted to thank you for supporting my husband and his unit. You definitely brought cheer and a morale boost to each of them. This unit is a transportation unit and therefore are doing convoys on the dangerous roads of Iraq on a daily basis. They have encountered many imminent threats and my husband's vehicle alone has taken 4 direct hits. This kind of ongoing stress and fatigue can be a huge drain on our troops' morale. However, it is people like your volunteers who reach out to them and remind them that they are not forgotten. Your support gives them a taste of home and comfort that is priceless. Although we back here can't bring them home safe in body, that's their buddies' job, we can assist them in arriving home healthy in mind and spirit. You and your volunteers have contributed greatly to that mission through the packages you sent. I know you may not hear back from most of them, so I thought I would give you a little personal insight into what your efforts have accomplished. You have touched the lives of Heroes who are willing to place themselves in harms way and leave their families behind because they know that this country is full of good people who embrace and treasure the freedom they fight for. May God bless your efforts. Thank you for not only thinking of our troops but going that extra step to let them know you do. From a grateful and touched heart.
R.U., Proud Wife of a US Soldier.

HT: Operation Gratitude.com

Freedom Is Worth It

Dear Mr. Obama -
A video of an Iraq veteran is YouTube's most watched election video, generating 11 million views.

Update: Apparently, my YouTube account has been cancelled and I am banned from the site! This video is no longer available.


Dear Mr. Obama Video

Iraq War Strategy Vindicated

During the last three weeks of Election 2008, John McCain ought to bring these facts up on the campaign trail!

October 16, 2008
McCain's War Story
By Adam G. Mersereau


A broad consensus is forming -- encompassing the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Whoopi Goldberg -- that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake regardless of the outcome. Senator McCain has defended the Surge, but not the Iraq War. He is missing a chance to reveal the naïveté of his opponent.


Everyone knows that the Bush Administration made some avoidable mistakes early in the Iraq war. However, after the bold troop surge and the change of strategy designed by General Petraeus, victory is in sight. But no one is celebrating. .


Senator Barack Obama fuels the growing consensus by referring to the Iraq war as a "dumb war." In the first presidential debate, when Obama confronted Senator John McCain on his early support for the Iraq war, McCain changed the subject. In their second debate, Obama attacked the wisdom of the war even harder, and McCain conspicuously avoided the issue. No doubt McCain feels Obama's "dumb war" narrative tightening around his neck like a noose.


But McCain should not hide from the true story of the war in Iraq. Far from being a "dumb war," underneath our mistakes in Iraq lay several strokes of strategic genius. The American people-especially those who have made great personal sacrifices-deserve to hear again the compelling reasons why we invaded Iraq, and how a victory in Iraq could vindicate their sacrifices.


Choosing the Battlefield


It is a basic principle of warfare that a commander must never allow his enemy to select the terrain on which he fights. The attacks of 11 September 2001 were designed for the primary purpose of drawing the United States into Afghanistan, which is Al Qaeda's preferred kill-zone. Al Qaeda helped defeat the Soviet Union there. When the Soviet Union subsequently collapsed, Al Qaeda leaders were convinced they had discovered a formula for destroying infidel super-powers: draw them into the God-forsaken moonscape of Afghanistan to fight a protracted war. Al Qaeda knew it would require a spectacular provocation to lure the U.S. military into Afghanistan. Hence 9/11.


Rather than fall for Al Qaeda's "rope-a-dope" ploy, the Bush administration's war planners examined the global situation. Just as America did not charge headlong into Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor, we would not launch a massive invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. Sure, we could have staged a massive invasion of Afghanistan, but to what end? A large-scale war there would cost many lives and untold resources but would render almost no strategic advantage against the global network of terrorists and their state sponsors.


Instead, President Bush would send a small force to Afghanistan to disperse the Taliban and work with NATO to disrupt Al Qaeda and police the border with Pakistan. To engage the enemy head-on, he would select a battlefield better suited to our strategy.


Iraq - the Obvious Choice


The biggest threat to America was -- and still is -- another 9/11 style attack incorporating nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Even before 9/11, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a beehive of terrorists and WMD activity. Saddam funded Palestinian terrorism. He gave safe haven to notorious terrorists. He hosted bases for six different terrorist groups. His own "Fedayeen Saddam" was operating training camps in Iraq for terrorists from all over the Middle East.


Just prior to 9/11, a Washington think-tank concluded that the most lethal threat to the United States would come from a biological or chemical attack. Biological and chemical weapons were Saddam's forte. One of the few living humans to have actually deployed chemical weapons on a large scale, Saddam was known to possess large stockpiles of them (inspectors inventoried them after the first Gulf War) but refused to provide evidence of their disposal. He had vigorous anthrax and smallpox programs, and he maintained dual-use facilities that could be converted within mere weeks to biological and chemical weapons factories. And yes, he maintained a skeleton nuclear weapons program, ready to be reconstituted as soon as he could beat U.N. sanctions and inspections with help from Russia and France.


All of this made a good case for regime change before 9/11, which is why regime change was the stated goal of the Clinton Administration and Congress before George W. Bush was elected. Every known method to contain Iraq had been tried and had failed: weapons inspections, economic sanctions, U.N. resolutions, and targeted strikes. Editors of the Washington Post and New York Times warned that containment was not working. Military action against Iraq was publicly espoused to varying degrees by Democrats Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and others.


Although these Democrats were among the first to call for retreat when the war became difficult, their pre-9/11 assessment of the Iraqi threat was correct. After 9/11, leaders of both major parties were all the more devoted to "connecting the dots" between terrorist groups and WMD. For anyone paying attention, Iraq was covered with dots.


In addition, the Bush team knew an invasion of Iraq would bring the terrorists to a battlefield on which an American victory could change the entire course of the global war on terror. If a stable representative government could be established there, the entire dynamics of the region could be altered for the better. We would have a new ally that shares a passable boarder with Iran. Perhaps a new Iraq would even give rise to the one antidote for the spreading disease of militant Islam: a Muslim nation willing to fight against Muslim extremists. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq had the infrastructure, resources, and political history to make such a vision possible.


When Barack Obama quips that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to our invasion, he shows his naïveté. The influx of Al Qaeda into Iraq did not discredit the Bush plan, it vindicated it. Further vindication came when in 2005 Ayman al-Zawahiri deemed Iraq the "place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era." We had refused to take the bait in Afghanistan. Instead, we selected a battleground that could yield results beyond mere retribution. We had a lot to learn about our chosen battlefield and would make fateful errors, but ultimately our military would learn to fight well in Iraq.


The Surge


The small-force strategy that routed the Taliban did not work in Iraq. It actually prolonged the Iraq war and gave credibility to Bush's critics. When things got bad, Obama and others clamored for the U.S. to withdraw. Biden argued for a partition of Iraq that would have yielded disaster. But when President Bush teamed with Senator McCain to support a troop "surge" coupled with the new Petraeus strategy, they delivered a devastating blow to our enemies in Iraq and elsewhere. At a moment of fierce political opposition and great military risk, Bush and McCain committed our nation to victory. We showed the terrorists that despite the calls for surrender coming from the left, some Americans had not lost their nerve.


To discredit the success of the surge, Barack Obama cites the Anbar Awakening as the real turning point in the war. But again he fails to understand a fundamental truth of warfare. The surge and the Awakening were symbiotic. The surge allowed us to consolidate the gains resulting from the Awakening, and vice versa. This is the kind of "luck" that often follows in warfare when commanders make bold, well-reasoned decisions.


To prove his mettle after calling for retreat, Obama now argues for a troop surge of his own, this time in Afghanistan. Apparently, it was dumb to invade Iraq but it's smart to expand the war in Afghanistan. What is his strategy? What is his definition of victory? What if our allies balk? He should answer these questions before Election Day.


Senator Obama presents himself as a new kind of diplomat, saying he would open presidential talks with enemies like Iran. Ironically, if Iran's leaders agree to speak with a future American president, it will only be because President Bush has placed them under tremendous pressure. Obama fails to understand that before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, we could not engage Iran from a position of strength. There was no way the U.S. could transport a land army to Iran. The only threat we could muster was air strikes which, when used alone, are often counterproductive. The mullahs knew they were nearly untouchable. As a result of decisions now mocked by Obama, however, the next American President will have real bargaining power. Added to the NATO force on Iran's eastern border, America may soon have on Iran's western border an ally and a long-term military presence.


A dumb war? Rest assured, the leaders of Iran and other Muslim nations see the strategic wisdom of the Iraq war. McCain should tell the story as it ought to the be told.


A former officer in the United States Marine Corps, Adam G. Mersereau studied the basics of warfare at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia in the early 1990's. He left the Marine Corps in 1995 at the rank of Captain. He is now an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia.


HT: American Thinker: McCain's War Story

*******

P.S. Back in 2004, I saved an article entitled, "The Military Brilliance of the Iraq War." Thought some might like to read, compare and contrast what Craig R. Smith wrote back then with what former United States Marine Corps officer Adam G. Mersereau wrote in his article today.