all-encompassingly

Compare his thoughts on President Bush’s call to reform Social Security back then to his own stance on reforming health care right now.

Comedy gold.

Can you honestly watch this clip and come to a different conclusion?

“The system worked.”

Update: I apologize. Perhaps the title is a bit harsh…to the mentally handicapped. As Doug Ross notes, “On this morning’s talk circuit, Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano achieved the rare feat known as Complete and Total Beclownment.”

Personally, I give her performance a solid B+.

Funny? Insightful? Meaningless? I’m not sure.

But this is a fascinating examination of the omnipresent number 30 in casualty counts of Taliban in Afghanistan.

Just how often has the U.S. and NATO killed the Taliban in groups of 30 during 2009? The answer may surprise you:

Adnkronos, 12/07/2009: “Up to 30 suspected militants were killed in a NATO airstrike on a Taliban hideout in eastern Afghanistan close to the Pakistani border on Monday. The airstrike targeted the village of Sangar Dara in the mountainous Watapur district of Kunar province , the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said.”

SF Chronicle, 12/04/2009: “Air strikes in two areas of the Mohmand border region killed 30 suspected militants, a military statement said. It said the strikes were “highly successful” but provided no further details, including whether any civilians were hurt.”

Xinhua, 11/04/2009: “The military said that the troops have killed 30 more militants during the last 24 hours, bringing the total fatalities to 400, as the operation in the country’s tribal area steadily progressed towards the Taliban strongholds in South Waziristan.”

Xinhua, 08/31/2009: “At least 30 bodies of suspected Taliban fighters were recovered in northwest Pakistan’s insurgency-hit Swat valley on Monday, witnesses said. The Pakistani army said they were killed in fighting with the security forces.”

Calgary Times, 07/04/2009: “The attack included an attempted suicide truck bombing of the base in the Zirok district of southeastern Paktika province, local officials said. As many as 30 Taliban insurgents might have been killed when troops called in air strikes, they said.”

And it goes on…

Tuesday, President Obama said the following regarding the planned addition of 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan:

[W]e are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action.

When I heard that, it struck me as…odd.

After all, we had more than 43 nations* supporting our action in Iraq in 2003, but no Democrat ever called that a “broad” coalition. Almost every Democrat, including Mr. Obama, seemed to sneer at President Bush for acting “unilaterally.”

On the five-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama perpetuated the untruth by deriding our efforts in Iraq as “unilateral.” Barack Obama’s site, Organizing for America, reported in March 2008:

Earlier today Barack gave an important speech to mark the five year anniversary of the Iraq war, titled “The World Beyond Iraq.” Barack called for a turn away from the path of “unending war and unilateral action.”

Ok? So, to clarify how this all works out in Crazy World:

A 45-nation coalition is “unilateral” if Bush the Chimp sets it up.

A 43-nation coalition is “broad” if Obama the Messiah organizes it.

Got it?
———–
* From knowledgerush.com:

The most recent White House count of [nations that have offered various degrees of support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq] numbered 49, although a review of public statements made by the governments themselves finds no more than 45.

Per Wikipedia’s final count, 33 nations provided some military support to the Iraq war effort.

See also: This Google Map of coalition countries.

———

more (12/4/09): It appears the Obama administration has also changed its stance on the assertion of executive privilege. This is change you have to see to believe.

Kind of like John Edwards, but less gay.

Behold, the X Factor’s Sanjaya:

Hat tip: Things I Say Out Loud.

A box office movie on the life of the prophet Muhammad is being planned. Sounds good, the only catch is that the biopic’s main character will never be on screen.

Budgeted at around $150m (£91.5m), the film will chart Muhammad’s life and examine his teachings. Osborne told Reuters that he envisages it as “an international epic production aimed at bridging cultures. The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam”.

Osborne’s production will reportedly feature English-speaking Muslim actors. It is backed by the Qatar-based production company Alnoor Holdings, who have installed the Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi to oversee all aspects of the shoot. In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen.

Well of course…

A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots.

A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.

The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.

See the ever-growing list at buzzfeed.com

the DNC says anyone who’s laughing at Obama “sides with the Taliban.”

They seem to have forgotten that the White House just declared the Taliban a non-enemy and furthermore said the Taliban should share in governing.

….they also said we’re siding with Hamas, which….endorsed Obama for President.

- AOSHQ

Why not? They fact-checked a Saturday Night Live Skit. But I’m not holding my breath.

On my way to work this morning, I heard a few seconds of a guy with a foreign accent awarding what sounded like a Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama. My reaction was: I was almost certain I was listening to a skit from SNL or one of the late-night talk shows.

I was wrong. Wow.

Will Obama be thinking about his World Peacemaker Cred when he decides whether or not to follow his general’s advice and increase troop levels to win in Afghanistan?