Monday, October 24, 2011

I Came, I Saw, Iran

Last week, while (not coincidentally) still smelling of manly musk from Muammar Gaddafi's death, Barack Hussein Obama announced that he's withdrawing all of the remaining troops from Iraq by year's end.

It's clearly a tremendous victory. Unfortunately, many observers believe it's a tremendous victory for Iran, which has actively been working against U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose name is at least as annoying to spell as the late Muammar Gaddafi's, is looking forward to taking de facto control over Iraq immediately following Mr. Obama's "kinetic holiday homecoming," and is apparently unworried that this additional responsibility might stretch his managerial reach too thin, what with also shooting protesters,
creating nuclear weapons and preparing to wipe Israel off the map.

The secret to his impressive time management skills? No golfing!

Of course, after losing so much blood and treasure in Iraq, the United States certainly isn't going to just walk away and leave the country to be gobbled up by Iran. That's why, despite the fact that Ahmadinejad has never even remotely been impressed by a threat from the U.S., we expect him to be held in another threat.

Hillary Clinton, who has finally stopped giggling and cackling over Gaddafi's corpse ("I think I wet myself!"), frowned into a camera yesterday and said that Iran would be "badly miscalculating" if they take advantage of the situation. OOoooooh!

Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that her threats can keep Iran from entering Iraq if her previous threats couldn't keep her husband from entering interns.

And it also seems unlikely that Obama's not-so-strategic withdrawal will be judged by History to be anything other than a declaration and embrace of American decline in the sad era of Hope and Change.


On the plus side, Iraq will be getting new construction jobs sooner than we will.


drjim said...

Great picture, Stilton!

Let's hope that's what happens in 2012!

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

Hillary does understand that she's issuing strong statements to Muslim fundamentalists, right? However untouched for decades, she still possesses a vagina, right? Not to be crude here, but the fact of her gender renders her words less than meaningless to Islamoscum. The muzzies probably regard anything she says as an insult. Somehow I think her words will get less mileage in that desert country than a Chevy Volt. What's especially funny is that Obama's words will get even less.

John the Econ said...

Suggestion to GOP candidates: Bone up on your Iran trivia. The media types are still likely to lay off these questions as long as they still believe that Obama is more than a lame duck, but they will be coming eventually. At least expect questions designed to make you look like a war monger compared to the Nobel Peace Prize winning President.

Jim Hlavac said...

Oh, the Iranians think they're going to take over Iraq, perhaps -- and there is a good number of Shi'ite Muslims in both countries -- alas, ethnically and linguistically they are quite different peoples -- Farsi speaking Iranians can't talk to Arab speaking Iraqis, and vice versa -- and there is no love between the two nations. And I suppose if the Iranian army comes on in, well, then the Iraqis won't tolerate that -- and even with a shell of an army, they're crazy enough to rise up without one. Iran would have to maintain an army there forever. And I would think that an Iranian invasion would backfire in a number of ways; not the least of which is that the people of Iran, already desperate economically, aren't going to see a whole lot of good coming out of the expenditure. Why, they might rise up too. Will it all be messy? Yep; but somehow, I'm just not worried about Iran gobbling up its neighbor.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

DrJim- Thank you!

@Angry Hoosier Dad- Personally, I think Hillary has a lot more testosterone than Obama does. Not that that's saying much.

@John the Econ- Isn't it funny how Obama's actual Nobel Peace Prize initiatives lead to so much bloodshed?

@Jim Hlavac- To clarify, I don't think Iran is going to march into Iraq and try to take control. Rather, I think they'll use their influence to help align Iraq with their interests (and against ours).

pryorguy said...

One thing about the Obama regime, loss for ideas and material for a cartoon!! There has been quite a deluge of news from the GOP debates, the white house, wall street, Libya, Iran...(not enough room to name ALL the Arab countries).

Emmentaler Limburger said...

I came, I saw, Iran

Masterful, my brother! Masterful!

Interestingly, the Imbecile In Chief has once again fallen victim to the Bush administration, I'm afraid. YE2011 was Bush's scheduled "end game" for Iraq, as I recall...

But: no fear! He's using fiat to override Congress' denying him his "jobs" bill, bill being the appropriate term for all it was worth: yet another bill tp be paid forward with no hope of realizing any value in doing so. Watch in amazement as Captain Fiat rewrites the constitution without lifting a pen! Gasp in awe as he uses executive orders to inflict the maximum damage possible to the US economy before he is tossed out (God willing) in January 2013! It sickens me to think he has over a year yet to stick more needles in his Uncle Sam voodoo doll - maybe escalating his perpetual campaign as we progress toward the 2012 elections will grant us a reprieve as he moves his eye to that other prize...

DragonAgnstEvil said...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all Islamic states have to have at least a rudimentary understanding of the "holy language" (Arabic) in order to be true to their prophet's word? I do believe it's part of the "sharia law" practiced by Muslim theocracies. I would find it all sorts of irony if Iran practiced "sharia law" (executing non-Muslims just because) yet did not teach/speak Arabic as at least a second language.


While we achieved military and some moral victory, Obama seems desperate to give absolute victory to totalitarian, sharia, murderous, jihad, hateful, immoral, unethical, [fill in your own, additional adjectives] terrorists.

It is truly sad that we did not support the Iranian uprising. There are a large number of Iranians who sympathize with Christians and Jews. Some protestors even calling for peace with the US and Israel, and I know how hard to believe that is.

In the end, the media ignores, lies, and makes the most outrageous stories that they can out of thin air. What else can we truly expect? Iran has been the biggest, almost only, source of "insurgents" in Iraq. Iran has been trying to derail the peace and democracy efforts from the beginning. A stable and free Iraq scares terrorists states half to death.

When Obama ignored the Iranian protestors, he alone stamped out what hope and power they had. He alone tightened the iron grip of Iran's dictators. He alone allowed terrorist groups to regain their political affiliations, regroup, and gave traction to their campaign to take back everything lost in the past decade.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Pryorguy- I wish there was no material for cartoons. And I frequently try to look for stories that allow me to vary things up from the basic "WTF is that arrogant jackass doing now?!" theme.

Believe it or not, I'd love to do some Hope n' Change cartoons illustrating good news. There just hasn't been much in a long time.

@Emmentaler- It is painful to think that Obama has at least another year to pull shenanigans and make things worse now, as well as make them harder to fix in the future. And his new "We can't wait" push to do things by executive order has a forbidding sound to it.

@Dragon Against Evil- Well said. I believe that Obama's complete unwillingness to support the uprising in Iran is paradoxically what forced him to act in Libya (as a face-saving measure) even though anyone with awareness of the region would probably have said it was a bad idea. Then again, he didn't ask for any opinions and didn't give any explanations. And whatever regime governs Libya will be part of Obama's legacy.

DragonAgnstEvil said...

An aside I just thought about, there is one thing I'll miss with the loss of Gaddafi. He was so very easily intimidated. He may have been a terrorist, but he was a coward very easily controlled. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather see one less tyrant in the world. I'd rather see a free and independent Libya. However, that's the caveat. I want a free and independent Libya. I don't want to see them handed over to a new batch of terrorists bent on bending the Libyan people to their mass murdering will.


It really doesn't surprise me. Not in the least.

It's absolutely criminal. He doesn't answer to anybody, and he dismantles the Constitution, which he claimed he studied, on a regular basis. The vast majority of Americans see the "jobs" bill for what it is - Stimulus v1.3.100 or some other such.

Bah, I hope he enjoys his Obamavilles -_-

Suzy said...

Rush Limbaugh said today that this pull out is actually BUSH'S timeline...this was Bush's goal to get them pulled out. He also stated that Obama has been trying to negotiate to keep the troops over there longer, but Iraq said NO. Therefore...they're going home. Stuff the media wont' tell us....

jfields03 said...

Love it! The pic is fabulous! Hahahaa.Good work. Let us see if the troops go home. I do not trust Obama one bit. J.

Jim Hlavac said...

Dear DragonAgainstEvil -- absolutely not! Why, No Afghani speaks Arabic as a second language - they speak Pashtu, Pashtan (different, oddly,) Herari, Dari, etc -- Indonesians speak over a hundred languages from Aceh to Borneo -- a 3,000 mile swath of Islands - Uzbeks don't speak Turkic of Turkmanistan, nor Uighars of China speak Urdu or Hindi (of whom there are many Muslims, Hindu the religion, Hindi the language) and Farsi is closer to English, as an Indo-European tongue than Arabic which is Semitic, and closer to Hebrew -- teh Turks speak Turkish, which is different still again than the Kurdish of Kurdistan. Even the "Arabic" of Morocco is different enough than the "Arabic" of Egypt such that they need a translator -- One could go on.

but no, the Kuran has been translated into as many languages as the Bible -- and there is no requirement, nor possibility, of people having two or three languages under their belt. Why, it would be like asking your average Christian to speak Latin, Aramaic and ancient Greek -- nope, not reality.

Ah, the "Muslim" world is as divided in many way as the "Christian" world. Though they share parts, they disagree on many others. Why, the Shi'ite and Sunni are like Catholics unto Baptists -- different, but related. :)

DragonAgnstEvil said...

I actually have a rough understanding of Latin =p

I also happen to have been born and raised Lutheran - consider myself non-denominational now. Martin Luther, of course, argued against the Church forcing tithing and speaking in Latin to prevent most faithful from actually understanding the Bible. Proving, yeah, politics and religion should always be separate.

A little off topic ^_^

Anyway, I do thank you for the insight. Though I lived in Turkey for a few years, I know little beyond the culture of the Turkish Kurds of Izmir...from the early 90s.


From what I understand, the troop strategy signed between the US and newly formed Iraqi government had troops set to withdraw 12/31/2011 unless new terms were drawn up. If I remember correctly, polling shows favorable opinions of Bush and the US in general, but a distinct disdain for Obama foreign policy has become a bit of an overriding factor.

It's been a while, and I might need to reach out to some contacts again... =/

In either case, it will be good to see our fine soldiers home. They deserve a respite; though, I'm unsure Obama will let them have it. He, after all, owns the mess in Libya, one which we can only pray doesn't turn into an easily recognizable quagmire. He has also made the situation with terrorists far more difficult to handle, or even get a handle on.

Bah! Look at me ranting on about Obama. I'll let him have his Obamavilles!

GOD Bless our troops!

GOD Bless the armed service men and women of this Great, GOD Bless Nation!

John the Econ said...

Although bringing 40,000 troops home may help Obama with his base, it's not going to help his unemployment stats one bit.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@John, I was just going to make that point, dagnabbit! I'm sure the Øbamanites have little for the number of soldiers coming home to do - unless he turns them all into his own little brown shirt brigade to usurp our ability to put him out of office in the 2012 elections. Should he attempt same, I wonder how many would go along? We would all like to say zero, of course - I'm willing to bet they would have liked to think similar of their countrymen in Nazi Germany, WWII Italy, USSR, etc. though... Scary to think about, but there is unfortunately much more to become history before we're through this...

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Suzy- I share your understanding of the situation; it sounds like Iraq told us to get out and (as Dragon Against Evil points out) much of that can be attributed to the fact that Barack Obama is not a reliable ally. General George Patton once observed "“I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me.” I think Iraq has similar (and well justified) lack of trust in Obama at this point.

@Jim Hlavac- Personally, I get confused by having instruction manuals printed in English, Spanish, and I'm impressed by your encyclopedic knowledge of cultures and languages!

@Dragon Against Evil- You understand Latin, lived in Turkey, and have "contacts." Glad you're on our side! All your points are good, but the best is surely that we should all be united in our joy that the troops will be coming home and (hopefully) getting out of harm's way for awhile. I couldn't agree more.

@John the Econ- I can see Obama spinning the story to say "numbers aren't everything. They seem to show rising unemployment, but if you look deeper you'll see that they really reflect our heroes returning to their homes. And those who would now point to those unemployment figures as a source of shame should, instead, be ashamed of themselves." (I'm an old advertising man, and understand "spin" all too well.)

@Emmentaler- Although I worry about many things, I have to say that I have no fear whatsoever that our returning troops could be turned into brown shirts who would fight against our Constitution and the nation. Quite the contrary - if Obama wants to form a "domestic army" (as he's said in the past) he'll have to draw from a very different pool of people than those who serve with such honor and distinction in our military.

And frankly, if the OWS types are conscripted to become Obama's brown shirts, they'll get their asses handed to them. Especially if they mess with veterans.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

@Stilton: I have to admit it's not keeping me up at night, and I agree with your assertions regarding our veterans and the quality of their service - if you knew me beyond these magically arranged electrons, you'd clearly understand how I feel about those serving and those who have served.

But at the same time, whether it sounds paranoid or not, I'm a pragmatist, and won't forget that Richard Blumenthal and John Kerry are both veterans (and confirmed liars) and that there are those within the ranks of our military who, frankly, didn't/don't belong there. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan comes to mind, as does Naser Jason Abdo - and these are only the ones who have exposed themselves (also notably "Islamists").

The military is not unlike a, albeit skewed, slice of US society. There are men, women, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, gays, "Islamists", psychopaths, sociopaths, anarchists, socialists, etc. in not entirely dissimilar proportions to society as a whole - even pacifists enlist - recall in 1990, when reserves were being activated, how some famously sought discharge because actually fighting in the military was against their convictions. And with the modernday PC bent on diversity in the military, I'm afraid that, though I am deeply indebted to them for their service, I cannot vouch for the motivations or machinations of all who do or who have worn the uniform. Nothing is beyond possibility.

Note also that the oath taken by Øbama, Congress, and the Supremes is not dissimilar to that we take when we enlist (paraphrasing): I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. The concept regarding fidelity to/protection of the Constitution is in all of them, yet look what has been happening in Washington. And their oath does not specifically enjoin them to obey Øbama's orders. There is a clear conflict there when the President is the domestic threat against the Constitution, is there not?

In any case, the likelihood of Øbama being able to enact such a force - even using the mindless zombies of Occupy, is very remote, and would likely precipitate the Change we've all been Hoping for these thousand-some-odd days: at the very least, his immediate impeachment if not his imprisonment for treason. (Now wouldn't that be cool!)

'Nuff from me.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Emmentaler- I certainly didn't think you were besmirching the troops, and I agree that you're going to get the whole spectrum of humanity - good and bad - in that large group. Moreover, we can't look over our shoulder at Nazi Germany and pretend that it's impossible for things to spiral out of control.

But fortunately, thinks like posse commitatus (which I'm probably spelling wrong) make it virtually impossible for Obama to try to send troops into the states for domestic military actions.

Moreover, having gotten good looks at how things have turned out for Bin Laden and Gaddafi, Obama may not be particularly drawn to the idea of declaring himself "ruler for life" in a well-armed country.

pryorguy said...

I want Herman Cain as Mitt's running mate next year. Looks as though Romney will be the THE ONE, and with good ol' Herman at his side, it will give most Republicans a good balanced ticket to vote for; I know it will make me gag a bit less voting for Romney! I just want O outa there!

pryorguy said...

Besides...I want to see him debate Biden!!!

Emmentaler Limbuger said...

@Stilton: the Posse Comitatus Act prevents local (ie. State, city, etc.) governments from using the US Military (though only the Army and Air Force are explicitly included) to enforce local laws. It says nothing regarding federal use of he same within the us for purposes other than law enforcement - say, for putting down "insurrection". In any case, why would you thing a mere act of Congress would hold more sway over Øbama than does the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution? His recent attention to the requirements of the War Powers Act should be instructive in answering that question. A rogue is a rogue in all facets; he cares not for preponderances of those he would control.

Just sayin'...

Suzy said...

PryorGuy...look at the polls...Cain has a very good chance of beating the establishment. If we ALL pitch in and help, then he CAN do it!

pryorguy said...

Yeh, Suzy, I know...but unless he gets his organization going and the money coming in, it can't happen...but I do feel as you say, he CAN do it! Also, if he debates O, he better be ready! I'm thinking maybe Romney has more experience and chutzpah in that area. He's still got time to make it happen with our support as you say. Maybe Mitt can be his VP!

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

I like Cain, but I absolutely love the idea of all those "Yes We Cain" bumper stickers out there causing progressive's heads to explode.
Running mates are irrelevant (look at Biden). Cain and Slobama (Romney) are oil and water, even more so than Kennedy and Johnson.