US to go it alone in Libya against ISIS?

GENERALS FEAR BENGHAZI 2 IN LIBYA

By F. Michael Maloof – WND

WASHINGTON – As Washington prepares to take “decisive military action” in Libya against the alarming growth of ISIS, retired generals have told G2 Bulletin they are concerned that the United States may go it alone, according to a new report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

They ask which allies, if any, will join a coalition and attempt to work with a Libyan government that barely exists.

The late Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi
The late Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi

At a news conference last week, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. said the U.S. is “looking to take decisive military action” against ISIS in Libya and that a decision would be coming “in weeks” but “not hours.”

“It’s fair to say that we’re looking to take decisive military action against ISIS in conjunction with the political process” in Libya, Dunford said. “The president has made clear that we have the authority to use military force.”

ISIS is thought to have more than 3,000 fighters, with more flowing into Libya from Syria and Iraq, where the U.S., Russia and other countries have been carrying out intense airstrikes against the jihadist fighters.

Another ‘trillion-dollar failure’?

In October 2011, the U.S., France and Britain launched attacks that led to the overthrow of the government of Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi. Since then, the country has not had a functional government. Warring factions of local jihadist groups are preoccupied fighting among themselves for dominance rather than taking on ISIS or coming together to form a government of national accord.

U.S. action in Libya, retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney told G2Bulletin in an email, “is the last thing we need to do!”

“Why spend (a trillion dollars) for another COIN (counterinsurgency) failure?”

Retired U.S. Adm. James Lyons Jr., who served as commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet from 1985-1987, told G2Bulletin that McInerney’s concern about the possibility of unilateral U.S. action is “Spot on!”

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely expressed similar concerns to G2Bulletin, concluding Dunford’s comments represent a military invasion by the Obama administration.

“I can’t even see Obama taking any offensive action anywhere like that,” Vallely said.

Vallely is chairman of the non-profit Stand Up America and the private Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, which is looking into the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

He said that if there is to be any such military action, it needs to include Egypt, which bombed ISIS locations in Libya after the February 2015 beheading of some 21 Libyan Coptic Christians who were working in the country.

Vallely also thought the Russians could join, especially if asked by Egypt, since Moscow has just concluded a $2 billion military arms deal with Cairo that includes helicopters, fighter jets, Kornet anti-tank weapons, the anti-ballistic missile system Antey-2500 and the Buk-2 surface-to-air missile system.

Get the rest of this report, and others, at Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/generals-fear-benghazi-2-in-libya/#cg3TDbtqr1Rm6Guz.99

Dem Lies, Memes, Bush and WMD to Fit Lack of ME Policy

Editor’s Note – As we see Obama spin and twist the story about Russia entering the war in Syria as a sign of Russian weakness, he deflects by calling his detractors’ ideas as “half-baked” and “mumbo jumbo”, and apparently he forgot about Hillary Clinton’s idea for a “no-fly” zone.

Major Garret posed that question to him yesterday and his answer called for a quick two-step and then referred to the fact that she being a candidate and being President were two different things.

“Hillary Clinton is not half-baked in terms of her approach to these problems,” Obama said carefully, reminding reporters she served in his administration as Secretary of State. But Obama pointed out that Clinton’s rhetoric on Syria is merely campaign rhetoric.

“I also think that there’s a difference between running for president and being president,” he said carefully, pointing out that he was having specific discussions with his military advisors about the right way forward in Syria. “If and when she’s president, then she’ll make those judgments and she’s been there enough that she knows that, you know, these are tough calls,” he said. (Read more here at Breitbart.)

Classic Obama deflection, or twist in the wind like he has done on almost everything Iraq related, including sticking to old lies and societal memes that have long since been disproved as bunk. But it is not just Obama dancing fast and loose with the facts, it seems every single Democrat is as well. Victor Davis Hanson shows us the proof below and reminds us of the stunning flips and flops, lies and half-truths, and stark regularity you can bank on at a Reno Casino in all likelihood.

The Left would rather forget its old slogan, “Bush lied, thousands died.”

By Victor Davis Hanson – National Review

The very mention of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Iraq was toxic for Republicans by 2005. They wanted to forget about the supposed absence of recently manufactured WMD in great quantities in Iraq; Democrats saw Republican defensiveness as key to their recovery in 2006.

george w

By the time Obama was elected, the issue had been demagogued to death, was no longer of any political utility, and so vanished.

So why all of a sudden is the New York Times strangely focused on old WMD stockpiles showing up in Iraq? Is the subtext perhaps that the rise of ISIS poses an existential threat in such a dangerous landscape (and by extension offers an explanation for the current bombing)?

Or are we to be reminded that Bush stirred up a WMD hornets’ nest that Obama was forced to deal with? Or is the sudden interest intended to preempt the story now before we learn that ISIS routinely employs WMD against the Kurds? How strange that Iraq, WMD, bombing, and preemption reappear in the news, but now without the hysteria of the Bush era.

Indeed, for the last two years, reports of WMD of some sort have popped up weekly in Kurds and Iraq. Bashar Assad has used them, apparently with strategic profit, both in deterring his enemies and in embarrassing the red lines of Barack Obama, who had threatened to bomb him if he dared use them.

ISIS is rumored to have attempted to use mustard gas against the Kurds. Iraqi depots are periodically found, even as they are often dismissed as ossified beyond the point of easy use, or as already calibrated and rendered inert by either U.N. inspectors or U.S. occupation forces. But where did all the WMD come from, and why the sudden fright now about these stockpiles’ being deployed?

For much of the Bush administration we heard from the Left the refrain, “Bush lied, thousands died,” as if the president had cooked intelligence reports to conjure up a nonexistent threat from Saddam Hussein’s stockpiles of WMD — stockpiles that Bill Clinton had insisted until his last days in office posed an existential threat to the United States.

Apparently if a horde of gas shells of 20th-century vintage was found, it was then deemed irrelevant — as if WMD in Iraq could only be defined as huge Iraqi plants turning out 21st-century stockpiles weeks before the invasion.

The smear of Bush was the bookend of another popular canard, the anti-Bush slogan “No blood for oil.” Once the fact that the U.S. did not want Iraqi oil was indisputable, that slander metamorphosed. Almost immediately the Left pivoted and charged that we were not so much oil sinister as oil stupid.

If the Iraqi oil ministry, for the first time in its history, was both acting transparently and selling oil concessions to almost anyone except American companies, it was now cast as typically ungracious in not appreciating the huge American expenditure of blood and treasure that had allowed it such latitude.

Was the Iraq War then a stupid war that helped Russia and the Chinese? Poor Bush ended up not so much sinister as a naïf.

Although we don’t hear much any more about “No blood for oil,” the lie about “Bush lied, thousands died” has never been put to rest.

What was odd about the untruth was not just that Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and the anti-war street crowd become popular icons through spreading such lies, but that the Democratic party — whose kingpins (Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, et al.) had all given fiery speeches in favor of invading Iraq — refined the slur into an effective 2006 talking point.

That Democrats from Nancy Pelosi to Harry Reid had looked at the same intelligence from CIA Director (and Clinton appointee) George “slam-dunk” Tenet (who authored a self-serving memoir ankle-biting George W. Bush while still in office), and had agreed with Tenet’s assessments, at least until the insurgency destroyed public support for the war, was conveniently forgotten.

The Bush administration did not help much. It never replied to its critics that fear of stockpiled WMD had originally been a Clinton-administration fear, a congressional fear, an international fear — and a legitimate fear.

I suppose that the Bush people wanted the issue of WMD to just go away, given the insurgency raging in Iraq and the effective Democratic campaign to reinvent fear of WMD as a sinister Bush conspiracy. (Do we remember Colin Powell’s U.N. testimony and the years that followed — cf. the Valerie Plame/Richard Armitage fiasco — in which he licked his wounds while harboring anger at his former associates for his own career-ending presentation?)

In sum, the Bush White House certainly did not remind the country that most of the Clinton-era liberal politicians in the 1990s had warned us about Iraqi WMD (do we even remember the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act?).

Nor were we reminded that foreign leaders like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak had predicted mass death for any invaders who challenged Saddam’s WMD arsenal. (“General Franks, you must be very, very careful.

We have spoken with Saddam Hussein. He is a madman. He has WMD — biologicals, actually — and he will use them on your troops.”) Was part of the Bush administration’s WMD conspiracy forcing tens of thousands of U.S. troops to lug about chemical suits and masks in the desert?

No one, of course, noted that the initial success in Iraq also helped shut down Moammar Qaddafi’s WMD program in Libya and pressured the Pakistanis to arrest (for a while) the father of their bomb, Dr. A. Q. Khan. The latter nations apparently feared that the U.S. was considering removing dictators who that they knew had stockpiled WMD.

The current The Iran-Iraq War by Williamson Murray and Kevin Woods is a frightening reminder of how Saddam massacred the Kurds (perhaps well over 150,000 killed), often with gas, and how habitual was Saddam’s use of WMD against the Iranians in that medieval war.

Nor do we remember that James Clapper, in one of his earlier careerist contortions as a Bush-era intelligence officer, along with top-ranking officials in both the Iraqi and Syrian air forces, all warned us that WMD were stealthily transferred to Syria on the eve of the invasion of Iraq.

The dutifully toadyish Clapper added the intensifier adverb “unquestionably” to emphasize his certainty. Clapper, remember, went on to become Obama’s director of national intelligence and a key adviser on much of the current Obama Middle East decision-making, including the near bombing of Syria.*

So there were stocks of at least older WMD throughout Iraq when we arrived in 2003, and it was plausible that many of the newer and more deployable versions somehow found their way into Syria.

So worried was Barack Obama about the likelihood of Syrian WMD that he almost started a preemptive war against Bashar Assad, but without authorization of Congress and with no attempt to go to the U.N., as Bush had done. (Indeed, we are now preemptively bombing Iraq on the basis of the 2002 authorizations that state legislator and memoirist Barack Obama derided at the time.)

There were all sorts of untold amnesias about Iraq. No one remembers the 23 writs that were part of the 2002 authorizations that apparently Obama believes are still in effect.

They included genocide, bounties for suicide bombers, an attempt to kill a former U.S. president, the harboring of terrorists (among them one of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers), and a whole litany of charges that transcended WMD and were utterly unaffected by the latter controversy.

How surreal is it that Obama is preemptively bombing Iraq on twelve-year-old congressional authorizations that he opposed as trumped up and now may be relevant in relationship to dealing with Syrian and Iraqi stockpiles of WMD?

We forget too how Harry Reid declared the surge a failure and the war lost even as it was being won. Or how Barack Obama predicted that the surge would make things worse, before scrubbing such editorializing from his website when the surge worked.

Do we remember those days of General Betray Us (the ad hominem ad that the New York Times, which supposedly will not allow purchased ad hominem ads, granted at a huge discount), and the charges from Hillary Clinton that Petraeus was lying (“suspension of disbelief”)?

As Obama megaphones call for national unity in damning Leon Panetta’s critiques during the present bombing, do we remember the glee with which the Left greeted the tell-all revelations of Paul O’Neill, George Tenet, and Scott McClellan during the tenure of George W. Bush, or how they disparaged the surge when Americans were dying to implement it?

It is hard to recall now the fantasy climate that surrounded “Bush lied, thousands died.” Cindy Sheehan is now utterly forgotten. So mostly is the buffoonish propagandist Michael Moore, except for an occasion tidbit about a nasty divorce and cat fights over his man-of-the-people sizable portfolio — and occasional attacks on Barack Obama’s supposed racial tokenism.

Hillary’s shrill outbursts about Iraq evolved into “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Barack Obama rode his anti-war distortions to the presidency only to adopt his own anti-terrorism protocols and preemptive wars using the Bush-era justifications, but without the candor and congressional authorizations.

The media went from “No blood for oil” and “Bush lied, thousands died” to noting strange discoveries of WMD and trumpeting near energy independence.

The U.S. is now nonchalantly referred to as the world’s largest oil producer, but largely because the Bush administration green-lighted fracking and horizontal drilling, which the present administration opposes and yet cites as one of its singular achievements in terms of lowering gas prices — the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal economic record.

So we live in an era of lies about everything from Benghazi and Obamacare to the alphabet soup of scandal and incompetence at the IRS, ICE, VA, USSS (Secret Service), NSA, GSA, and even the CDC.

But before we can correct the present lies, we should first address the greatest untruth in this collection: “Bush lied, thousands died” was an abject lie.


NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.


* Here is an excerpt from the October 2003 New York Times story:

The director of a top American spy agency said Tuesday that he believed that material from Iraq’s illicit weapons program had been transported into Syria and perhaps other countries as part of an effort by the Iraqis to disperse and destroy evidence immediately before the recent war.

The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material “unquestionably” had been moved out of Iraq.

“I think people below the Saddam Hussein-and-his-sons level saw what was coming and decided the best thing to do was to destroy and disperse,” General Clapper, who leads the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said at a breakfast with reporters.

Daesh (ISIS) Closes in on Baghdad Airport, Kobani – Obama Fail

Editor’s Note – The charade that is Obama’s assault on Daesh (ISIS), meant to degrade and destroy is obvious now – it is just a political ploy to get him through the midterms. Once again, Obama and team place politics ahead of policy, and sadly, American and allied national security.

In addition to the article below that shows that Daesh is ready to ruin Baghdad’s days ahead, especially the lifeline international airport, they are now poised to take Kobani in Syria on the Turkish border. The experts believe that if they take it, there will be a bloodbath amongst the refugee population if the Turks do not intercede.

The Turks are poised in a defensive front, but will they take offensive action?

Intense street fighting raged in the Syrian city of Kobani Monday as ISIS came closer to capturing a key area on the border with Turkey.
ISIS fighters planted their flag on a hill on the eastern side of Kobani, then punched through defenses to open up the route for more troops, one witness inside the city told CNN.isidypg

CNN crews on Monday also spotted what appeared to be the black flag of ISIS flying from a hilltop on the eastern side of the city. The flag was farther east into the city from one shown flying atop a building in video from Reuters and also seen by the CNN crews.

Many Kurdish forces defending the city were wounded and killed, and many ISIS fighters were also killed as clashes spread from street to street, the witness said.

The fall of the city would carry huge symbolic and strategic weight, giving ISIS sway over an uninterrupted swatch of land between the Turkish border and its self-declared capital in Raqqa, Syria, 100 kilometers (62 miles) away.

The Turkish military, which has bulked up its defenses along the border in recent days as the fighting has flared, blocked people fleeing the embattled city from crossing the border. (Read the rest here.)

America – take note, Obama needs to take ownership for all of the carnage – he earned it!

ISIL Within Shelling Range of Baghdad Airport

Gaining ground in both Iraq, Syria

By   – Washington Free Beacon

The United States appears to be losing its fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) in Iraq and Syria, experts say, as the jihadist group adapts to U.S. airstrikes and advances toward Baghdad and a strategic town on the Syrian-Turkish border.

McClatchy reported on Friday that ISIL had established an operational presence in Abu Ghraib, a town within miles of the capital Baghdad that could enable the militants to shell the Baghdad International Airport with artillery. The airport serves as a key transit point for Western embassies and houses a joint operations center with U.S. military advisers.

A Defense Department spokeswoman said there were no indications yet that ISIL had taken over Abu Ghraib.baghdad_-_airport_and_green_zone

ISIL has also made significant gains in recent days in Iraq’s western Anbar province, where it has seized the town of Hit and launched assaults on other military bases in the region. Hundreds of Iraqi soldiers have been captured, and U.S. and allied airstrikes appear to have failed to push back ISIL from its strongholds in Anbar.

In Syria, ISIL engaged in intense fighting on Monday with Kurdish forces in Kobani—a key town near the Turkish border that could grant Islamic militants new smuggling lines for fighters and supplies if they control it. U.S. airstrikes have also failed to relieve ISIL’s siege of Kobani.

Additionally, the Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that ISIL fighters have adopted new tactics to evade airstrikes and retain control of territory, including avoiding the use of cell phones and radios, removing their leaders and weapons from bases in Syria, and blending in with the civilian population.

Wayne Hsieh, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and a former State Department official who served in Iraq, said in an interview that “things are not going well.”

”The problem at the end of the day is how seriously [President Obama] takes this,” he said.

”Is this the president’s response to political pressure placed on him after the execution of [American journalist James] Foley, or does he really want to degrade and destroy the Islamic State? If he really does want to degrade and destroy the Islamic State, I think you’re going to have to see escalation, but the situation on the ground militarily is so problematic.”

Hsieh said he did not believe Baghdad was close to falling to ISIL, but added that sustained attacks on the airport there would pose a serious threat to supplies for Western embassies and the U.S. military personnel that are stationed there. He questioned why the United States had not provided arms to the YPG, the Syrian Kurdish forces battling ISIL in Kobani that previously helped save tens of thousands of Yazidis in Iraq.

Turkey, whose parliament voted last week to authorize strikes in Iraq and Syria, still has not aided the Syrian Kurds because of their ties to the PKK, a group that both Ankara and Washington have designated as a terrorist organization.

Hsieh noted that the U.S. military and its allies are largely using bases in the Persian Gulf to strike ISIL in Iraq and Syria, meaning their planes have to cover longer distances and must spend more time refueling than if they had bases in Iraq. Operating from Iraq would likely require more U.S. troops on the ground to secure the bases.

isilartilleryNavy officials have said they are relying on ships and aircraft that are already in the region and do not plan on deploying another carrier due to the limited nature of the strikes. Those limitations could be contributing to the inability so far of the airstrikes to uproot ISIL from its positions, Hsieh argued.

“That just shows you how not seriously they’re taking this,” he said.

U.S. forces also used Apache AH-64 attack helicopters for the first time over the weekend to strike ISIL militants near Fallujah. Helicopters are more vulnerable to small arms fire and missiles than warplanes.

“[The Obama administration’s] sort of doing this slow-motion escalation,” Hsieh said. “I don’t know if they’re thinking all this through.”

Commander Elissa Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman, defended the Obama administration’s strategy against ISIL in an emailed statement.

“Our airstrikes have been effective in achieving our goal of degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL,” she said. “It is important to remember that this is a long campaign, and we have been clear that it will take time to roll ISIL back.”

Smith added that there will soon be about 1,600 military personnel in Iraq, but “the Defense Department has said that there won’t be any ground combat forces and we don’t comment on future operations.”

However, some analysts say Obama’s strategy still does not match his stated goal of eliminating ISIL.

Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq during the George W. Bush administration, said in an email that the United States’ current anti-ISIL efforts are “long on symbolism and short on substance.”

“To avoid targeting ISIL forces attacking Kobani is like Franklin Delano Roosevelt declaring war on Japan, and then concentrating the American attacks on Argentina,” Rubin said. “What we have is war as a neighborhood organizer would fight it, not as anyone who knows anything about the military or the Middle East or simply the real world would advise.”

McCarthy – Obama ISIS "Management" – A National Discussion?

Editor’s Note – So what will our illustrious leader, President Obama, tell us tonight regarding ISIS, Iraq, Syria, and terror threats the day before the second anniversary of Benghazi and the 13th anniversary of 9/11/01?

Are we in for a ‘fireside chat’, or a ‘come to Jesus moment’, maybe this is when Obama becomes an adult, not just a bad actor trying to look Presidential? Only the teleprompter knows! The irony of this moment is palpable – especially when we see the image below of his speech from 2010 declaring the end of our Iraqi combat mission – he looked like an adult then, didn’t he?

President Obama delivers an address to the nation on the end of the combat mission in Iraq from the Oval Office August 31, 2010
President Obama delivers an address to the nation on the end of the combat mission in Iraq from the Oval Office August 31, 2010. The irony is palpable indeed.

Does anyone think he will manage this mess in the Middle East well? Doubtful, the reason things are so bad across the globe now are directly attributable to his inability to manage to begin with. Of course, no matter what actions he chooses to take, we are all supposed to back him as he does. We are supposed to unite behind our “Commander-in-Chief” aren’t we?

The old axiom of leaving politics at our shoreline was crossed off the list by Obama himself beginning with his 2009 Cairo speech and his apology tour, so forgive us if we have no faith in his ability to manage any foreign policy, let alone a war, especially in regard to anything Islamic.

If you have family in the military now, like many of us, be very worried – we do not have to explain why, now do we? Using Obama and the word management in the same sentence is clearly an oxymoron, now isn’t it?

We could go on and on but Andy McCarthy has summed it up so well. Please read below:

A Mismanage-able Problem

Obama’s belief that he can “manage” the Islamic State may collide with reality.

By Andrew C. McCarthy – National Review Online

Liberal Rant – Conservatives are Pro-War, a Response

Editor’s Note – In a recent Facebook discussion on the Cowboy Logic page, several people posited that Republicans are pro-war and therefore are responsible for many of today’s ills across the globe, and most notably Iraq. As usual, the discussion devolved into a typical morass due to the application of common liberal tactics by more than a few people.

Since there was an argument about the facts, Don Neuen (SUA/Cowboy Logic Radio Co-Host) decided to stop the conversation and do some research. He did so and re-initiated the discussion after posting the following. We encourage anyone to respond as a few did after the initial posting of Don’s research. Please read:

By Don Neuen

Conservatives are pro DEFENSE… pro MILITARY… we are not pro WAR as ‘you’ [referring to a liberal respondent] have repeatedly stated incorrectly…

  • World War I – Woodrow Wilson – Democrat

    Join us on Facebook to participate in similar discussions.
    Join us on Facebook to participate in similar discussions.
  • World War II – FDR – Democrat
  • Korean War – Truman – Democrat
  • Bay of Pigs – Kennedy – Democrat
  • Vietnam War – LBJ – Democrat
  • Grenada – Reagan – Republican
  • Persian Gulf War – Bush – Republican
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina – Clinton – Democrat
  • War on Terror – Bush – Republican
  • War on Terror – Obama – Democrat

But let us look deeper…

Under Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat (Progressive), the Democrats held control of both the Senate and the House from 1913-1917… From 1917-1921, The Democrats continued to control the Senate…

WilsonFDRWar

Under FDR, a Democrat (Progressive), the Democrats held control of both the Senate and the House from 1933-1945…

Under Truman, a Democrat, the Democrats held control of both the Senate and the House from 1945-1953, with the exception of 1947-1949 when the Republicans took control of the House…

Let’s pause here and reflect: During WWI, WWII and the Korean War, the Democrats held control of the Senate exclusively… And with the exception of 1917-1921, and 1947-1949, the Democrats also held control of the House…

I’d also like to note that WWI ended in 1918, while the Republicans held the House… And WWII ended in 1945 when the Republicans closed the gap in the House to its most narrow margin during FDR’s reign…

I’ll continue…

Under JFK, a Democrat, both the Senate and House were controlled by Democrats…

Under LBJ, a Democrat, both the Senate and the House were under the control of… you guessed it: the Democrats…

Under Reagan, a Republican, The Senate was under the control of Republicans for his first 6 years, from 1981-1987… Reagan had two years of a Democrat held Senate: 1987-1989… During Reagan’s entire term, Democrats held control of the House – from 1981-1989…

Under a Conservative failure: Bush 41, a Republican, both the Senate and the House were under the control of the Democrats during his term from 1989-1993…

Under Clinton, a Democrat, the Senate and House were under the control of the Democrats (1993-1995)… From that point forth, both the Senate and the House were under the control of the Republicans (1995-2001)…LBJ.JFK

Now we get to the next Conservative failure: Bush 43, a Republican… The Senate was barely held, but held nonetheless, under the control of the Republicans for half of his term… From 2001-2003, and again from 2007-2009, neither party held control of the Senate… As far as the House goes, Republicans held the purse strings for the first 6 years (2001-2007), but from 2007-2009, the Democrats gained control of the spending…

Now we get to Obama, a Progressive… The Senate has been under the control of the Democrats from 2009-today… The House was under the control of the Democrats from 2009-2011 and has been under the control of the Republicans from 2011-today…

“What’s your point Don???”

My point is this: When you look at the Commander-in-Chief during times of War, you also must look at which party controls the House and the Senate… It is undeniable that more wars have started under Democrat/Progressive Presidents… That cannot be argued…

Furthermore, More wars have been started and perpetuated during times when the Democrats held control of the House and the Senate… That cannot be argued…

If Democrats don’t like war: Don’t fund war… Don’t preside over war… Don’t authorize war…

You statement that “Conservatives are “pro war” is clearly incorrect…

Now let’s take a look at US casualties from war…

Clearly, WWI & WWII fall under Democrat Presidents as well as an exclusive Democrat Senate and with the exception of 1917-1919, an exclusive Democrat House of Representatives…

Not a good way to start the argument that “Conservatives are pro war”, but I digress…

During WWI & WWII, we lost 116,000 and 405,399 soldiers respectively…

The Korean War cost us 36,516 soldiers… Again, Democrat President… Democrat Senate, and a Democrat House, with the exception of 1947-1949… I’d like to note that the Korean War was not taking place during the time in which Republicans held control of the House during Truman’s term, so the Korean War belongs to the Democrat Party…

Bay of Pigs/Vietnam… While some may consider the loss of 4 US lives inconsequential, Conservatives do NOT… I’ll drop Benghazi into the mix briefly… Back to the Bay of Pigs… we lost 4… During a period in which the President was a Democrat, and both the Senate and the House were under control of the Democrats…

Are we staring to see a pattern here?

Now for LBJ and Vietnam… I can’t blame LBJ entirely for the Vietnam War, in which we lost 58,209 US soldiers… But I can pin him for his term as President, as I can Nixon… But I can, and will blame the Senate and House, both controlled by the Democrats during the entire Vietnam War… And if you are a stickler for details, let’s go back to the start of the Vietnam War, and much to my surprise, who controlled Congress, both chambers? Bingo, the Democrats… moving on…

TrumanReaganUnder Reagan, a Conservative, we have a few military conflicts to discuss… First, Iran… clearly, history has shown that Iran mocks Democrats and is afraid of Conservatives…

Then we have El Salvador, Beirut, and Grenada… US deaths: 322… It should be noted that all three of these conflicts, or wars took place under a Republican Senate and a Democrat House…

Now we get to Conservative failure #1: Bush 41… Total loss of life: 353 (Panama, Gulf War and Operation Provide Comfort)…

Please note that during these conflicts, the Democrats held complete control of both the Senate and the House…

During Clinton’s terms… Somalia was the biggest loss of life… 43… Next was Bosnia: 32… But let’s also note that the House and the Senate were controlled by the Republicans from 1995-2001… Democrats held control of both the House and Senate from 1993-1995…

And now for Conservative failure #2: Bush 43… Clearly, this man, to a Conservative, was an abysmal failure… During his terms, an accurate loss of life count is varying… But I’ll use the estimate of 4,539 (Iraq) and 1,049 (Afghanistan)… During the Bush 43 debacle, Republicans held the purse strings from 2001-2007… For the most part, the Republicans also controlled the Senate during that same time period…

For the record… In the opinion of this Conservative, the Bush administration/Congress was a complete failure of true Conservative values…

Now, for Obama… Again, statistics are clearly inaccurate… But according to what I know, during Obama’s time at quarterback (2009-2014), we’ve lost 265 in Iraq and 2,416 in Afghanistan… oh… and 4 in Benghazi…

So again you ask “What’s your point Don????”

My point is simple… The party of War is clearly the Democrats… Historical facts prove that…

Quite possibly, Sir… you are confusing “Conservative Democrats” with “Conservatives”…