Did Ari and Andrew catch Sarah Palin’s Alaska on TLC? You Betcha! Discussions on airport security, the debt commission, Canadian protectionism, free speech and more, all on this action packed episode of Strictly Right.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Subscribe to Strictly Right Radio in iTunes.
With all that’s going on with our Mark Steyn event, it was nice to take a break and read the latest hit from my favorite author.
I had heard Rush Limbaugh mention Vince Flynn over the radio last year and decided that if Rush recommended it, it must be topnotch. I picked up a copy of Extreme Measures at an airport book store and began the book on a short flight. A sleepless night later, I was hooked. After devouring my first Mitch Rapp (the feature character) novel, I proceeded to purchase every other book Vince Flynn had written.
The latest in the Rapp saga, American Assassin, brings the reader back to the origins of the CIA’s most effective assassin. Assassin takes place shortly after Rapp’s long-time girlfriend, Maureen Eliot, was killed aboard Pan Am Flight 103, the Lockerbie Bombing. Following Maureen’s death, Rapp dreamed of delivering justice to those responsible.
Rapp’s recruiter, Irene Kennedy, has to fight to get Mitch accepted in the CIA training program. Stan Hurley, who we have met in earlier books, is the man responsible for training the next generation of black ops agents. He is immediately skeptical of Rapp, who he refers to as a “college puke,” because Rapp has no prior military experience. However, Rapp’s chief defender, Irene Kennedy, contends that the CIA needs someone who can think outside of the box and act independently and she believes that Rapp is that man. With Kennedy’s support, Rapp is admitted into the training program where he makes a first impression only Mitch Rapp can make (if you have read any of the other Rapp books you know what that means). From the outset, Rapp shows signs of what we know he will become. Despite the fact that he has had no formal training, his work ethic and raw athletic ability (he was a standout athlete at Syracuse, captaining the lacrosse team) make Rapp a formidable force. He excels in the training program, mastering all required fields.
On a side note, while we have met an older Stan Hurley in recent books, the younger, field operative Hurley is one of my favorite characters. Just a tough, mean, no nonsense SOB. He’s a drunk, temperamental vet that still strikes fear into the hearts of terrorists the world over. All you really need to know is that he goes by the code name “William Tecumseh Sherman” because he plans on burning his enemies to the ground. That makes him my type of guy. Enough said.
Anyhow, After Rapp finishes his training (as by far the best recruit), we follow him on his first mission. Without giving too much away, Rapp sets the tone with how well he does with orders right off the bat, disregarding his superiors and executing a plan he considers more logical. On this operation Rapp tracks down a renowned arms dealer, who by the way sold the explosives to the Lockerbie bomber. The sequence wherein Rapp pulls the trigger with a terrorist on the receiving end of swift justice does not disappoint.
Rapps’s next venture finds him in Beiruit, Lebanon, at the time of a ceasefire agreement which ended the nation’s bloody civil war. There, Rapp is supposed to rendezvous with Hurley and another agent when something goes wrong. Hurley is recognized from his last trip to Lebanon, and is almost immediately taken hostage. Rapp is faced with the option of leaving Hurley behind, or going into indian country and trying a long shot rescue mission. Obviously, Rapp goes in and all hell breaks lose. Throw in some Russian gangsters/government officials as secondary villains on top of an all-star cast of Muslim terrorists and you have another gem from Vince Flynn.
On this Strictly Right,Andrew and Ari have a wide-ranging discussion with Mark Steyn about the survival of the West, take a look at the latest in the global warming hoax, and examine how the Democrats undermine their country and hate its citizens.
Check out Mark’s upcoming appearances in London and Toronto, Ontario.
You can listen to this episode online here or subscribe to the podcast in iTunes.
Follow @AndrewLawton and @AriMFine on Twitter for the latest updates.
UPDATE: Strictly Right Radio is once again available, just click on the link. Thank you for listening!
On this Strictly Right, Ari and Andrew talk about the Left and the Tea Party, a former Obama supporter gone rogue, a German man and his schnitzel, and a speedbump in Canada’s quest for gun-rights.
You can listen to this episode online here or subscribe to the podcast in iTunes.
The most common takeaway from President Obama’s speech last night was that it was meandering and boring. While that is true, as Obama somehow managed to talk about the economy and Afghanistan in a speech allegedly marking the conclusion of the Iraq War, it misses the point of one of the most galling speeches in presidential history. In his address, the President announced:
…tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.
This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done. We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.
This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security…
It is truly sickening to see this man, President Obama, who stood against the troops, against the mission, and against his country, take credit for the work of the previous administration and the sacrifices made by the genuine heroes that comprise United States and coalition forces.
Hoping to score cheap political points, the Democrats demoralized and demonized the men and women defending freedom in Iraq. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid famously said “this war [Iraq] is lost.” 2004 Democrat nominee for president, Senator John Kerry, accused American troops of “going into the home of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, women…” There was John Murtha who described American Marines in Haditha as “murderers.” Murtha’s “murderers” were all later exonerated. Senator Dick Durban compared U.S. troops to “Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some mad regime, Pol Pot or others, that had no concern for human beings..” And of course there was candidate Obama in 2008, who said that U.S. troops were “air raiding villages and killing civilians.” The video below documents who supported the troops – and who did NOT:
The party of retreat and defeat opposed the surge in Iraq, lambasted General Petraeus when he testified to the success of the strategy, and spread vicious lies about the previous administration. The Democrats have called the troops stupid, they’ve maligned Americans who put their lives on the line every day as torturers and common thugs. Now President Obama wants to take credit for their great work. Last night’s victory speech came from the man who represents the greatest obstacle to American militarily victory: the Democratic Party. The United States succeeded in Iraq in spite of Obama and in spite of his treacherous party.
From the time Allied boots set foot in Afghanistan, pundits have been eager to draw comparisons between the wars ins Afghanistan and Vietnam. The most common refrain is that just like Vietnam, Afghanistan is an unwinnable war. In reality, that is the wrong conclusion. In fact, Vietnam was absolutely a winnable war, and in fact was won, for a time. Likewise, Afghanistan is also a winnable war. However, the two wars do share some commonalities. The most striking similarity between Afghanistan and Vietnam is the criminal incompetence of the Democratic Party.
One of the most often used quotes about war comes from William Tecumseh Sherman, who said “war is hell.” Going to war is always a difficult decision, yet sometimes it is a necessary one. In his farewell address before the Congress, General Douglas MacArthur explained:
I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting.…
But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.
War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.
In war there is no substitute for victory.
General MacArthur made those remarks after he was relieved of duty for expressing his frustration that the President would not allow him to win the Korean War in 1951. Sadly, his remarks fell upon deaf ears. America’s next major military confrontation came in the jungles of Vietnam. There, under President’s Kennedy and Johnson, the United States military was severely shackled, once again not allowed to win.
Under President Johnson, most famously, the United States subscribed to the idea of ‘limited war.’ The ‘whiz kids,’ a group of highly educated liberals with no military experience, who ran the Defense Department, did not believe in ‘victory.’ Instead, the Johnson administration sought to ‘communicate’ with the Vietnamese through a series of contracted military engagements, with no intention of obtaining outright military victory. While this view may seem enlightened in the West, it was seen as weakness in the East. The Vietnamese communists knew all they had to do was out-wait the Americans and they would win. Until Nixon took over, the American military was forced to fight a war that was only unwinnable because of the constraints put upon them by an incompetent president.
Picture that – a group of over-educated liberals ignoring military advice, refusing to state that victory is the objective, turning a war into a quagmire. Hard to believe.
There are two real lessons people should take from Vietnam. First, let the military win. The United States military could win, if only politicians would allow them too. It is entirely unacceptable for politicians to declare wars, then constrain the military. The Lemay doctrine should always be employed:
“a nation should think long and hard before it goes to war. But once that decision is made, then that nation should be willing to hit the enemy with every conceivable weapon at its disposal to end the conflict as quickly as possible. If a nation is not willing to do that, it should not go to war in the first place.”
(Lemay: The Life and Wars of General Curtis Lemay, p.96-97)
Any time this doctrine is not used, the result is a disaster. It was not used in Korea, it was not used in Vietnam and it has not been used in Afghanistan. It is time for President Obama and his whiz kids to get out of the way. If Afghanistan is the “good war,” as Obama and the Democrats said throughout the 2008 election season, than the only acceptable conclusion to the war is victory. However, when asked, President Obama said, “victory” is not necessarily the goal in Afghanistan.
Over the weekend, Peggy Noonan wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the McChrystal controversy has forced us to focus on Afghanistan. With his renewed focus, President Obama should examine what General MacArthur said, that, “in war there is no substitute for victory,” and allow General Petraeus to craft his strategy around that principle.
The second lesson is much simpler – Democrats should never be put in a position of public trust. They are weak, arrogant, and incompetent – a lethal combination.
Either way, I kinda like this guy.
An American man accused of trying to sneak into Afghanistan to hunt down and kill al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden has been detained by authorities in Pakistan, police said on Tuesday.
Gary Faulkner was caught in the Brumboret Valley near the border of Afghanistan’s Nuristan province carrying a dagger, pistol and night vision goggles and was being questioned in Peshawar, Chitral police chief Jaffer Khan said.
[...]
A brother of the detained man told a news conference in Colorado that Gary Faulkner was in Pakistan legally and had been there six times on a “mission” to kill bin Laden.
“He’s not crazy, he’s not a psychopath and he’s not a sociopath,” Scott Faulkner said. “He’s a man on a mission and believes that God’s got his back.”
Okay it was probably stupidity, but he was probably closer to killing Bin Laden than the military was. Killing Bin Laden shouldn’t be something that people are punished for. If this man was willing to sacrifice his life to do it, he deserves no less respect than those in the military with the same goal. He just didn’t really think things through too well.
As always, Right Girl is hilarious:
The part of this story I don’t understand is why he was arrested and detained. Carrying a sword in Pakistan is like carrying a cell phone in Toronto. There’s nothing unusual about it. And killing bin Laden – that should be everyone’s top priority, regardless of who they are. The Pakistan government claims to be on our side, yet has been as useless as our Western governments in locating and killing that beast. Instead, they have the hills marked as “secured”. Why is that? Who are they protecting – aimless wanderers like Faulkner, or more sinister elements?
Where was this during his presidency?
Bush defended his decision to invade Iraq in 2003, saying taking Saddam Hussein out of power was the right thing to do and that the world is a better place without him.
The former president also stood by the decision to waterboard Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-professed mastermind of the September 11th attacks.
Bush said he would quote “do it again to save American lives.”
One of the biggest problems President Bush had was defending himself against baseless attacks from the left. The media accused the President of being a sadistic torturer, akin to Torquemada. In addition, George W. Bush was painted as a heartless warmonger, looking to ‘steal Iraq’s oil.’ The truth of the matter is that waterboarding terrorists like KSM, which was only done to 3 terrorists, and fighting terrorists where they live, kept America safe. On September 12, 2001, who would have believed that the country would not be hit again over the next 7 years?
Besides being the Great Liberator, George W, Bush was “The Decider.” As President, George Bush understood where the buck stopped. Unlike Chairman O, Bush made the tough calls. He didn’t vote present. President Bush did not have to worry about his immediate legacy, he correctly understood that in the end, history would vindicate him.
In a previous post I documented how the Obama administration is throwing Israel under the bus in favor of a group of anti-American terrorists that danced in the streets on 9/11. In stark contrast to the Obama administration’s disgraceful pronouncements is Rep. Tom McClintock (R-California):
M. Speaker:
I rise to express my great concern over recent statements by Administration officials regarding Israeli housing construction in that nation’s capital city.
History warns us that appeasement of mutual enemies is the surest possible way to destroy alliances and to invite aggression, and yet the rhetoric of this administration is taking us down this very dangerous road.
Israel has every right to allow construction its capital city and throughout the West Bank — over which it exercises rightful sovereignty.
The administration seems to have forgotten that Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 – not the other way around – and the result was the Israeli acquisition of this land.
The Israelis haven’t forgotten that – nor have they forgotten the folly of unilaterally giving up the Gaza Strip, from which rockets are now routinely launched against Israeli civilians.
Imagine the danger to Israel’s capital by repeating that mistake in East Jerusalem.Appeasement all but guarantees the escalation of conflict.
