By Anthony H. Cordesman, Washington Post

Obama should support the troops with more equipment or get out now. The situation is getting worse.

The United States cannot win the war in Afghanistan in the next three months — any form of even limited victory will take years of further effort. It can, however, easily lose the war. I did not see any simple paths to victory while serving on the assessment group that advised the new U.S. commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, on strategy, but I did see all too clearly why the war is being lost.

The most critical reason has been resources. Between 2002 and 2008 the United States never provided the forces, money or leadership necessary to win, effectively wasting more than half a decade. Our country left a power vacuum in most of Afghanistan that the Taliban and other jihadist insurgents could exploit and occupy, and Washington did not respond when the U.S. Embassy team in Kabul requested more resources.

The Bush administration gave priority to sending forces to Iraq, it blustered about the successes of civilian aid efforts in Afghanistan that were grossly undermanned and underresourced, and it did not react to the growing corruption of Hamid Karzai’s government or the major problems created by national caveats and restrictions on the use of allied forces and aid. It treated Pakistan as an ally when it was clear to U.S. experts on the scene that the Pakistani military and intelligence service did (and do) tolerate al-Qaeda and Afghan sanctuaries and still try to manipulate Afghan Pashtuns to Pakistan’s advantage.

Read More:

FOXNEWS SUNDAY

Calling it a "terrible decision" that undermines national security and devastates CIA morale, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed the Obama administration’s probe of aggressive interrogation of terrorists.

"It’s an outrageous political act that will do great damage, long-term, to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say," Cheney told "FOX News Sunday" in a no-holds-barred interview.

In blunt, unsparing language, Cheney accused President Obama of setting a "terrible precedent" by allowing an "intensely partisan, politicized look back at the prior administration."

He said the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to launch a probe into alleged abuse of prisoners under the prior administration "offends the hell out of me," as he seemed to question Obama’s fitness as commander-in-chief.

"I have serious doubts about his policies," Cheney told FOX News’ Chris Wallace in Jackson Hole, Wyo. "Serious doubts, especially, about the extent to which he understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation."

Read More:

Rasmussen Report

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove. That’s the highest level of Strong Disapproval yet recorded for this President and it gives Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends).

If Americans could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 57% would throw out all the legislators and start over again. Just 25% would vote to keep the Congress.

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That matches the lowest total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.
Support for the health care reform package proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats has stopped falling, but most voters are still opposed.

Read More:

By James Lewis, American Thinker

The parallels between Barack Hussein Obama and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin are intriguing. To be sure, there are differences: Barack Obama is not the absolute ruler of a tyrannical state. Lenin was. We are not about to see a violent Bolshevik coup like Lenin’s. (At least, I’m fairly sure.) America in 2009 is not Russia in 1917. So we won’t equate them.

And yet, without losing sight of those facts, the similarities are too strong for mere coincidence. So I’m going to make up the word "Leninoid," as a reminder that Obama isn’t Lenin  — but he must have hired the same Hollywood scriptwriters. I don’t know why. I’m just pointing to what I see.

It was Lenin, not Stalin, who first introduced the Cult of Personality to raise his profile to superhuman status after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Even today, some Leftists talk about Lenin as a Jesus figure, who only murdered four million people out of necessity. Wikipedia writes that "The late Australian historian and leftist intellectual Manning Clark described Lenin as "Christ-like, at least in his compassion."

Obama’s entire election campaign was based on a Cult of Personality, deliberately whipped up by PR honcho Axelrod and shamefully effective with many Americans. The Obama-as-Jesus theme has been sounded by Obama himself, followed by his millions of acolytes.

Hollywood Lefty Susan Sarandon has said: "He is a community organizer like Jesus was … And now, we’re a community and he can organize us."

Read More:

by P.J. O’Rourke, The Weekly Standard

Us right-wing nuts sure is scary! That’s the message from the Washington Post. To put this in language a conservative would understand, the fourth estate has been alarmed once again by the Burkean proclivities of our nation’s citizens. The Post is in a panic about (to use its own descriptive terms) "birthers," "anti-tax tea-partiers," and "town hall hecklers."

If, last Sunday, you spent a profitless hour reading the Washington Post (itself not too profitable), you noticed the loud yapping and desperate nipping at those who disagree with liberal orthodoxy. It was as if top management were a toy schnauzer accidentally mistaken for a duster and traumatized by being run back and forth through the venetian blinds. The wise and prestigious broadsheet institution was so barking mad that it sent three (Three! In these times of hardship for the print media! When reporters are being laid off right and left–well, mostly right–and stories are going uncovered from rapidly warming pole to pole! Three!) journalists to do battle with "The Return of Right-Wing Rage."

That was the subtitle of Rick Perlstein’s section B leader. The title was "In America, Crazy Is a Preexisting Condition." Perlstein wrote the book Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus so you can intuit (or "grok" as Perlstein might put it, given his prose style) the contents of his article. Yes, Rick, right-wing rage has returned. It was up at my place for the weekend. But it’s back, and it’s not like right-wing rage ever really went away. It didn’t, as you would say, Rick, "move on."

Read More:

By Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily

Obama Czar Van Jones

Just days before his White House appointment, Van Jones, Obama’s environmental adviser, used a forum at a major youth convention to push for what can easily be interpreted as a communist or socialist agenda.

As WND previously reported, Van Jones, special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is an admitted black nationalist and radical communist.

Jones’ appointment was announced on March 10.

Two weeks before he started his White House job, however, Jones delivered the keynote address at Power Shift ‘09, which was billed as the largest youth summit on climate change in history. A reported 12,000 young people were at the D.C. Convention Center for the event.

Read More:

by Declan McCullagh, CNET News

Obama will be able to take over the internet

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Read More: