Guest Contributer: Tom From NJ

Tom replies to my post entitled: "Massacre At Mazari-i-Sharif: It's A U.S. Pastor's Fault."

"We even tolerate the intolerant."

All too true, Peter; at least if the tolerated intolerant hail from one of PC's Most Favored Victim groups. That this is largely PC-driven is proven beyond doubt by the grotesque fact that Muslims as a group -- including the most radical, violent and, yes, intolerant among them -- have achieved full-fledged MFV status among the Liberal Establishment of both parties and the MSM. The latest stomach-turning development here is General Petraeus' mealy-mouthed apology for the Koran burning staged by self-proclaimed Christian minister Terry Jones and his huge throng of tens of like-minded haters.

The good General is no doubt a fine and dedicated officer but he has apparently fallen victim to the military professional's most prevalent occupational malady -- fighting the last war. Petraeus has been trying to adapt the deference to Islamic mores and traditional tribal structures that powered the successful surge in Iraq to a very different situation in Afghantistan, where the shorthand for Islamic mores and traditional tribal structures is most often spelt T-A-L-I-B-A-N. In Iraq, the Sunni elders had their own excellent reasons to morph into active foes of al-Quaeda; in Afghanistan, the incentives for tribal leaders vis-a-vis the Taliban seem almost 180 degrees opposite.

Unfortunately, the response of the General, and the Obama Administration, has been to double-down on an increasingly expensive and ineffective strategy, with his public reaction to the Florida Koran burning being the latest example. Petraeus rightly condemns the Koran burning as an offensive and intolerant act, but he never even mentions, must less denounces, the murderous temper-tantrums of Afghan Muslims that resulted in the deaths of innocent people, even the beheadings of a pair of UN mission officials, nor does he call any attention to the fact that the worst of these tantrums have been whipped up by lying imams who claim repeatedly that burning Korans by the dozen is virtually routine in Great-Satan America.

Now Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain's poodle, is joining in with a strange and dangerous doctrine that the "loose lips sink ships" ethos of World War II be applied to the "war" that the USA is currently engaged in. Senator Graham, may we dare ask -- what war are we now engaged in, exactly? None has been declared, certainly not in the same way as WW II, and wouldn't we want such a clear legal basis before we limit our traditional American free speech, which in your statement you damn with faint praise as "a good idea, but . . .?"

Never one to miss an opportunity for working a scam, Hamid Karzai is also jumping in on this Koran-burning issue. Admittedly Karzai -- unlike General Petraeus -- condemns the murders as well as the book-burning, but how he and his well-respected, wildly popular regime is going to investigate to describe and explain what really happened. Can anyone doubt, based on the slippery Karzai track record, that the results of this "investigation" will be heavily couched in terms of "blame America first?" Followed by an even larger bill presented to Wash-DC by Karzai for his invaluable and selfless services in "opposing" -- ha, ha! -- the Taliban?

In any case, Petraeus, Karzai, Obama, Graham, the MSM, and all the rest of our dhimmis-in-training will sooner or later blame alleged American "intolerance" as the root cause of murderous anti-Western protests in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Ummah. None will question why, after all the sacrifices in blood and treasure Americans and their Western allies have made to benefit or "protect" -- today's buzz-word -- various Muslim populations, significant percentages of those same populations seem fully prepared to believe any outrageous charge that those same Westerners are nothing more than tools of the Jews and/or Crusaders in sheep's clothing waging war on Islam. Which is to say, could these murderous tantrums actually be the result of MUSLIM intolerance? But to say so is not PC and is, therefore, taboo, unlike willingly undermining our Constitutional protection of free speech, the better to tolerate the intolerant. God save America!
--------------------------------------------
My comment: They engage in 'murderous tantrums' because it works for them. Can you blame them? Like children, the more they act out, the more we allow. Tolerance only works up to a point.

Petraeus: Between A Rock And...

Gen. Petraeus is between a rock and a hard place. He’s been given a job in which the only outcome can be failure. He is aware of that. The soldier in him would never allow him to say so publicly.

POTUS knows it too. He is quite prepared to sacrifice Petraeus when things begin to go come apart. By sacrificing Petraeus, he also sacrifices the military - a win-win for Obama: two birds with one stone.

POTUS has no intention in winning abroad. His only interest is in winning at home. Some would call it ‘failing’ To Obama, however, failure is a win. That is why Petaeus and Obama will never see eye to eye. They don’t speak the same language.

Petraeus is a patriot; Obama isn’t. Nothing more need be said.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

A Voice Calling in the Wilderness

In a horse race, seldom do any of those comprising the initial breakout group finish in the money. It’s only after two thirds of the race has been run that one horse from somewhere in the middle makes a strong move, easily passing all those ahead of it and go on to win.

As we look forward to the 2012 presidential elections we are naturally drawn to what we now consider to be the front-runners. This would presumably include Palin on the right and Obama on the left. There will be others, of course. Petraeus was a strong possibility until just a few days ago.

Conventional wisdom has it that establishment Republicans, independents, and the Tea Parties will split the ticket on the right, leaving the field wide open for any Democrat who chooses to accept the mantle. Obama, currently, is the best bet. However, if - as has been rumored – Obama drops out of the race, there is currently no Democrat with even a snowball’s chance in hell to get elected dog catcher – except Hillary Clinton. She’s been hanging back, conveniently keeping herself out of the various loops of what can be construed as any of Obama’s assorted controversies and disasters. She has been pointedly quiet about the oil spill, about the McChrystal mess, ObamaCare, Israel, Wall Street reform, Arizona, unemployment, etc. It’s almost as if she weren’t even there. I believe that the liberal media is actively helping to shield her; that she has become their next ‘project’.

Yet, her presence is palpable. Her silence on issues hangs like a damp cloth over everything and can be taken as either approval or disapproval. By purposefully failing to openly endorse Obama’s policies, she appears as one who stands apart from the Democrat power hub (that appears to be making all those unforgivable mistakes. Mark my words, the press will not allow her to be tarred by any of them).

Look for Hillary to make a move as 2012 draws nearer. Voters will not easily forget the Bush years (Democrats will do their best to remind us over and over again), nor will they take seriously Tea Party incursions. Obama will go back to what he loves (and he doesn’t love being president; ex-president will suit him far better), leaving Hillary to pursue her socialist vision with the full gravitas of her blue* or green pants suits - and her name. We’re being set up. The country has been preparing to receive its savior for a long time now. We thought the time was at hand when we elected Barack Hussein Obama. Little did we know that he was only a voice crying in the wilderness.
---------------------------------------------------
*remember in today’s upside-down America the colors are not what they appear to be – specifically, blue could be red.

Honorable Men

In order to advance his agenda overseas, Obama has had to choose an honorable man. Petraeus is faced with a moral dilemma. Should he support his Commander-in-Chief in a fool’s errand, or resign his commission? He chose to attempt the impossible. In doing so, he has sown the seeds of his own demise. He bears the praise of those who once cursed him and who will curse him again. He has chosen to fall on his sword in the name of honor (as defined by the military code of conduct).

This is not to say that what McChrystal did was not honorable. In his own way, he succeeded in drawing attention to a losing cause. Neither man considered the dearth of honor in Washington. Neither man considered the possibility of Barack Hussein Obama heading up a rogue government on the home front. Neither man gave consideration to what Obama’s true motive may be: the humiliation and ultimate destruction of the American military.

Petraeus will never think outside the box of total allegiance to the military which continues to give him meaning and purpose at the height of his career. He will defer to his civilian commander even if the latter chooses to use the military as a pocket knife for the stated purpose of bringing down a building. The building may in fact still stand, even after the knife has been irreparably ruined.

Father Henri Kremer in Volker Schloendorff’s film “The Ninth Day” faced a similar dilemma. Rather than submitting to the Nazi demand that he bring his religion in line with current realities, he chose to remain true to his church and, above all, to his conscience. Kremer survived.

Petraeus For President

The next U.S. president won’t be elected to that position because he has an ‘R’ or a ‘D’ after his name. Nor will he be elected because he can speak well and make lofty promises. He will not be elected because he’s black, or white, or green…

The next president of the U.S. will be elected on the strength of his resume and his character. And this is the way it should be. There should be no question as to his birth certificate or his allegiances. He will wear the stars and stripes lapel pin proudly and not waver between “Should I? Or, shouldn’t I?” Make no mistake, he will be a patriot.

He’ll take this broken nation as it is and will not further divide it. He will not deliberately demonize groups or industries to score cheap political points. He will have a plan for healing the nation and he will doggedly see it through.

His policies will not be poll-driven. He will not stick his moistened finger into the air to see which way the wind is blowing. He will understand his mandate and get it done. He won’t be shy to expose the feckless, the corrupt, the anti- American. He will stand with the people who can make this country great again. He will work tirelessly to clean up the messes left by the past three administrations.

I can see Petraeus as our next President – not in 2016, but much sooner.