Filed under: American Elephant, Democrat Corruption, National Security, News, Politics | Tags: illegal immigrants, Obama
The Party of Corruption strikes again. You see, illegal aliens can’t vote if they are in prison, and all the polls show that real Americans aren’t going to vote for Democrats next year, so Democrats need to find (or manufacture) votes elsewhere:
WASHINGTON – California and other financially strapped states will lose tens of millions of federal dollars that they spend to jail illegal immigrants charged with crimes, under Congress’ latest spending bill. The $1.1 trillion plan, finalized by House and Senate negotiators Tuesday night, combines six of the large yearly appropriations bills passed by Congress to keep the government running.
State officials and members of the California congressional delegation had lobbied hard once again to increase aid to the states for the program, hoping to cash in on California’s increased clout in Washington this year.
But their efforts fell flat, with the program set to be cut by more than 18 percent…
Overall, spending for the program would fall from $400 million to $330 million for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP, which President Barack Obama had targeted for elimination. It’s a formula grant program that provides aid to states and localities for correctional officer salary costs incurred for jailing criminal undocumented immigrants. [read more]
Keep in mind, these people aren’t in prison because they are illegal immigrants, they are illegal immigrants who are in prison because on top of being here illegally, they have been convicted of other crimes: rape, burglary, robbery, you name it. Cash-strapped states will now either have to come up with new funds to keep these felons in prison, or let them out. Once they are out, even if Democrats dont pass amnesty as they plan to do, ACORN can always register them to vote.
Border security, national security, your personal safety, the rule of law…all of these things take second place to Democrats lust for power. (via Sweetness & Light)
Filed under: Islam, Military, National Security, Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Afghanistan, Freedom, Pakistan
President Obama’s speech announcing his strategy on Afghanistan at The United States Military Academy at West Point was an odd speech. He announced a surge of 30,000 troops, partly in the hope that NATO would make up the rest of the 40,000 that General Stanley McChrystal requested. His strong words about the necessity for success were belied by his defensiveness about doing so.
To be fair, the President is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He clearly doesn’t want to be involved in Afghanistan, and is much more comfortable with his hard left base who oppose all war on general principles. He made sure to mention that he “opposed the War in Iraq which left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort.”
Obama seems unable to recognize that his constant attempts to blame everything on Bush, denigrate everything that the Bush administration did, is not only classless, but exactly what has created a “highly polarized and partisan background.” When politics permeates everything, it doesn’t stop at the water’s edge, as our tradition demands.
The Left opposed the War in Iraq by claiming that the “right war” was instead in Afghanistan — going after al Qaeda. That allowed the Left to avoid being characterized as anti-war; but now, faced with Afghanistan, they have no excuses and are united in opposition. And they really don’t want to spend any money on the war. The money is needed for their dream of socialized medicine, and that is going to be very expensive indeed. Spending the rest of the stimulus money on the war or scaling back health care is, of course, not an option. They’ll tax “the rich” some more.
Obama is trying to have it both ways. He doesn’t like the war, and wants “to end the era of war and suffering,” but it had better be cost-effective and cost-effective within 18 months.
The Left got onto this “exit strategy” thing with Iraq, demanding to know what Bush’s “exit strategy” was. Those a little more familiar with war find the question foolish. The exit strategy is when you win, when you accomplish your objective, but not a date which the enemy can just wait for.
We want President Obama and his strategy to succeed in Afghanistan. We want success on the battlefield. There is a lot of talk about “nation building”, but our aim is to protect the citizens and to train the Afghan army to protect the citizens. The people fear the Taliban, and will not help unless and until they feel secure.
My sense of this is that President Obama is completely uncomfortable with war. He has little knowledge of combat or battle, and little understanding of the military or how it works. “Victory” was never mentioned. He said “As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don’t have the luxury of committing to just one.”
I suspect that he never watches war movies, nor has read accounts of battles. It’s just unfamiliar, uncomfortable territory. Which is why he thinks an exit strategy is important, and a goal of eliminating nuclear weapons is plausible. And why he dithered for three months about simply making a choice.
And why he brags about his small efforts to recognize the military like “signing a letter of condolence to each family, reading letters from parents and spouses, and traveling to Dover to meet flag-draped coffins.” The commitment and pride with which Americans volunteer to serve in the military must be near incomprehensible.
“Ive spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships,” he said. “And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.” Soaring words, but with little relation to the real world. An odd speech, very odd.
I will support the effort in Afghanistan unreservedly. I hope the President does as well. The men and women who serve deserve our full support.
Filed under: Law, National Security, Politics, Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Civilian Trial, Islamic Terrorism, Military Commissions
Obama demands military trial for KSM
But that was then and this is now. Do they not understand the dangers and the consequences, or do they just not care?
(h/t: Breitbart.com)
Filed under: Law, Military, National Security, Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: 9/11 Trial in New York, Civilian Trial, Military Commission
The potential trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York civilian court is causing a well-deserved uproar. Attorney General Eric Holder testified today before the Senate Judicial Committee, and was thoroughly taken to task by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.
There is enormous confusion about semantics, the law, the Constitution, military law and international law. Since I am not a lawyer, have no special knowledge of the law and am completely unqualified to comment on this, I will explain. The law is the group of rules that a society agrees to adhere to for the sake of domestic peace and some semblance of fairness.
We don’t really agree on even the most basic things — for example in the case of murder, some believe in the death penalty and some abhor it. No middle ground there.
What could be clearer than “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech?” Yet look at all the trouble that one has caused — speech codes, hate speech, the fairness doctrine, political correctness — we fight these out over and over because there is no agreement. That’s why we have judges and courts who are, after all, only fallible humans.
Liberals like to favor the underdog. That may make them feel noble, but underdoggieness has no place either in civilian law or in military law. Terrorists, by definition, use terror and breaking all the rules of law to accomplish their ends. That they do not necessarily have all the elaborate equipment of a formal army does not make them underdogs who are entitled to some special compassion. William McGurn explains in the Wall Street Journal:
We don’t often speak of incentives in war. That’s a loss, because the whole idea of, say, Geneva rights is based on the idea of providing combatants with incentives to do things that help limit the bloodiness of battle. These include wearing a uniform, carrying arms openly, not targeting civilians, and so on.
Terrorists recognize none of these things. They are best understood as associations of people plotting and carrying out war crimes, whether that means sowing fear with direct and indiscriminate attacks on marketplaces, offices and airlines—or by engaging enemy troops without distinguishing uniforms, so that the surrounding civilians essentially become used as human shields. Terrorists reject both the laws of war and the laws of American civil society. To put it another way, they reject both the authority and the obligations their legal rights imply. (…)
The perversity here is that the overwhelming evidence of their war crimes gain them protections denied a soldier fighting in accord with the rules of war.
It even gains them more protections than their associates who attack military targets. This double standard means that the perpetrators of the USS Cole bombing are sent to military tribunals while the perpetrators of 9/11 are sent to federal court.
Andy McCarthy, who was the lead prosecutor of the “Blind Sheik” in the first bombing of the World Trade Center adds:
The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other top al-Qaeda terrorists to New York City for a civilian trial is one of the most irresponsible ever made by a presidential administration. That it is motivated by politics could not be more obvious. That it spells unprecedented danger for our security will soon become obvious.
John Yoo, law professor at U.C. Berkeley and an official in the Justice Department from 2001-2oo3 writes that:
Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.
Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.
This is another bad move by the Obama administration. It paints a large target directly on New York City, will take years to resolve, and is completely unnecessary. One would hope that the Senate would refuse to go along with Attorney General Holder’s irresponsible plans.
Filed under: Law, Middle East, National Security, Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Civilian Trial, Military Commissions, Shocking Decision
Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo detainees will be tried in New York in civil court, presumably with the same rights as common American criminals. The decision is not only shocking, but entirely unnecessary.
Mr. Holder said that these people should be tried in court where they committed their crimes, a statement that suggests that the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor should have been tried in civil court in Honolulu. This is absurd.
Rudy Giuliani, who knows a thing or two about New York and 9/11 and the law, runs through the problems of Obama’s decision in a video from Neil Cavuto’s show. It’s long, but worth it, for all of the consequences are not readily apparent. And there are real consequences.
Andy McCarthy, who prosecuted the first World Trade Center bombing trial, observes:
Today’s announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.
A major problem seems to be that the Left just doesn’t get “terrorism”. They sneered constantly at Bush’s “fearmongering,” for clearly 9/11 was a “one-off” event that would never be repeated. Victor Davis Hanson points out their error and their flawed assumptions, in an essay on our 9/10 mindset.
Filed under: Law, Military, National Security, Progressivism., Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Fort Hood, Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano
ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — The American Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, says that her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after Thursday’s dreadful massacre by U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is enlightening to see just what the Obama administration means by “homeland security.” Can’t offend anyone. Don’t want any hurt feelings.
Filed under: Law, National Security, Terrorism | Tags: And Other Newsroom Nonsense, Political Correctness, Root Causes
THIS WEEKEND IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON:
On Halloween, Police Officer Timothy Brenton and rookie Officer Britt Sweeney were sitting in a car following a traffic stop when shots were fired in a clear assassination attempt. Officer Brenton was killed and Sweeney was grazed in the neck.
On Friday, police detectives were pursuing a tip from a resident who said that a car at an apartment complex in suburban Tukwilla matched the description of a car seen nearby when Brenton was killed.
Officers examined the car, which was covered with a tarp, and when they walked to speak to other law enforcement conducting surveillance, Christopher Monfort (seen above) approached the three detectives. Detectives started asking Monfort questions when he pulled a gun and tried to shoot. Monfort was shot by the detectives.
In Monfort’s apartment investigators found rifles and improvised explosive devices which they disarmed before removing them.
Monfort graduated from the U.W. in March of 2008 with a degree in Law, Societies and Justice. He was seeking a job in law enforcement, and listed as one of his accomplishments an internship with the American Civil Liberties Union.
Seattle police have had no problem in clearly identifying Monfort as a “lone domestic terrorist,” which the media repeat, attributing the phrase to the police department.
MEANWHILE, BACK AT FORT HOOD, TEXAS:
Mark Steyn comments this morning in the Corner at NRO:
Nidal Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers and the shooting of 38 more at Fort Hood in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijah mosque in Great Falls ,Virginia in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists. …
[Hasan's] fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan’s “anti-American propaganda,” but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.
…The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) established the Presidential Transition Task Force, comprised of national and homeland security experts, policymakers and practitioners…The goal was to determine the top strategic priorities to advance the nation’s security in the coming decade…
Among the event participants was Nidal Hasan, representing the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine, who just last week shouted “Allahu Akbar” just before gunning down 51 of his fellow members of the military on their own base.
The nothing-to-see-here media continues to carefully avoid any mention of the word “terrorist” or “Islamist” and instead blathers on about pre-post-traumatic stress disorder apparently acquired by contact with someone who has served in combat. The New York Times went for this theme while explaining how mortified he was at having to deploy. CNN explained that “Treating trauma victims may cause it own trauma.” J.R. Salzman who is a little more familiar with PTSD than veterans of newsroom desks, is not amused.
There are many Muslims serving proudly in the United States Military, accepted completely by their fellow troops. Silly gyrations by the media to search for some fantasized root cause that will explain why Major Hasan became a Islamist domestic terrorist accomplish nothing except to fan the contempt the public holds for practitioners of political correctness.
Filed under: Capitalism, Economy, Foreign Policy, National Security, Politics, The Constitution, The Elephant's Child
The office of the President of the United States has a long and complex history. Over the past 220 years, it has been occupied by just 44 different men. George Washington was the first and undoubtedly will remain the last to be elected unanimously. He came to the office reluctantly.
He had been Commander-in-Chief long before he was elected President. He was elected to that position by the Continental Congress in 1775 when he was forty-three years old. There was not yet an army for him to command, only the militias surrounding Boston. And when he said he farewell to his troops in 1783, he was fifty-one. He had only a few years as a civilian before his country called upon him again. His prudence and restraint set the country on a firm basis, and in his farewell address he said:
In the discharge of this trust, I will only say, that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that, if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.
The office of the presidency, with its obligations of duty and commitment, takes a toll on the men who temporarily occupy the position. They owe a debt to those who have held the office before them, and to the history left to them by previous occupants. Treaties and alliances have been laboriously created, relations with other countries, whether in trade or good will, carefully nurtured. A knowledge and awareness of that history is essential.
Thomas Jefferson said:
Most bad government has grown out of too much government. [and]
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have…The course of history shows that as government grows, liberty decreases.
President James Polk remarked:
No President who performs his duties faithfully and conscientiously can have any leisure.
President Harry Truman:
I have tried my best to give the nation everything I had in me. There are probably a million people who could have done the job better than I did, but I had the job, and I always quote an epitaph on a tombstone in a cemetery in Tombstone, Arizona. “here lies Jack Williams, He done his damnest.”
Dwight Eisenhower said:
Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict on us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
Conservatives, independents, pundits and even many Democrats are trying to understand President Barack Obama. There are so many questions.
He is clearly not the centrist that he portrayed during the campaign. Is he a radical leftist? He has described himself as a communitarian, for whatever that is worth.
Barack Obama has never, we have been told, had much interest in history. A knowledge of and respect for history are essential to the presidency. Without that you repeat the mistakes and failures of those who have gone before. Depression, inflation, stagflation, debt, unpreparedness or trust in the wrong adversaries. The demands of the office require humility, not hubris.
Nations have interests. Relations with other nations are not popularity contests. Years of carefully nurtured relationships based on fair dealing and fair trade are being discarded in the hope of deals with long-term antagonists who wish our destruction. Speeches, however charmingly delivered and meetings are unlikely to sway them from their purposes.
When a new president temporarily takes on the most important office in the world, he becomes the president of all Americans, not just the unions who supported his campaign. He must suffer criticism and mockery in the understanding that it is the right of the American people and his role to bear it.
He takes on an obligation to preserve, protect and defend the nation. The savings that represent the life’s work of its citizens cannot be spent wildly in some misguided attempt to achieve progressive goals that have been proven over and over not to work. The American people, 38 percent, want the budget deficit cut in half in the next four years. Only 23 percent think health care reform should be a top priority.
I just don’t think that Barack Obama understands the office of the presidency. Oh, he gets the prestige, and he clearly likes the perks and trappings, some of which he adopted before he was elected. He keeps reminding us that “I won!” Yet he seems not to have understood the obligation, the duty, the sacrifice of the office and the weight of the burden that a president must bear. He and Michelle keep complaining about how hard he has to work.
There’s a lot more to it than being surrounded by admirers and sycophants attending to every need, than having AirForce One at one’s beck and call. I just don’t think he gets it. What do you think?
Filed under: Environment, Global Warming, Law, National Security, The Elephant's Child
Lord Christopher Monckton was a science adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He speaks and writes frequently on environmental policy. He sued to prevent Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” from being forced into British classroms…and won. The justice ordered that 9 serious inaccuracies in the film be corrected before the film could be shown in schools. Lord Monckton travels the globe, speaking to educate people on the myth of global warming.
Many of Lord Monckton’s papers and videos are available at The Science and Public Policy Institute.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Freedom, History, Islam, National Security, Politics, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Afghanistan, Eastern Europe, Iran, U.S. Foreign Policy
Vice President Cheney gave a speech last night at the Center for Security Policy. Once again, he proved why he is probably the most consequential vice president in the Nation’s history.
An excerpt from the speech:
Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before. You deploy a military force that was planned and funded by your predecessors. You inherit relationships with partners and obligations to allies that were first undertaken years and even generations earlier. With the authority you hold for a little while, you have great freedom of action. And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country’s word.
So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.
It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that – with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.
You hardly have to go back to 1939 to understand why these countries desire – and thought they had – a close and trusting relationship with the United States. Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. And those who try placating him, by conceding ground and accommodating his wishes, will get nothing in return but more trouble.
What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous “Reset” button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
In the short of it, President Obama’s cancellation of America’s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won’t be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well.
Big events turn on the credibility of the United States – doing what we said we would do, and always defending our fundamental security interests. In that category belong the ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need to counter the nuclear ambitions of the current regime in Iran.
A full transcript of the speech is available here.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Islam, National Security, Politics, Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Afghanistan, American Military, Indecision, Pakistan
This painting by San Francisco artist Ed Ruscha is one selected by President Obama to be loaned to the White House. It would seem to indicate some level of self-awareness on the part of Mr. Obama of characteristic indecision. The world is taking notice of Obama’s dithering regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan, and worrying.
The word “dithering” has gained a spot in current vocabulary that it has never previously occupied. In a campaign speech on September 9,2008, Obama said:
His plan comes up short. There’s not enough troops, not enough resources and not enough urgency. What President Bush and Senator McCain don’t understand is that the central front in the War on Terror is not in Iraq and never was. The central front is in Afghanistan and Pakistan where the terrorists who hit us on 9-11 are still plotting attacks seven years later.
On March 27, according to Charles Krauthammer, with his secretaries of state and defense at his side, the President said “Today I’m announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.” He made it clear that he had not arrived at the decision casually. The new strategy, he said, “marks the conclusion of a careful policy review.” The conclusion of an extensive review, the president assured the nation , that included consultation with military commanders and diplomats, with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with our NATO allies and members of Congress.
Dr. Krauthammer continued: “The general in charge was then relieved and replaced with Obama’s own choice, Stanley McChrystal.”
On August 30, Obama’s handpicked general submitted a request for 40,000 more troops which he said were necessary for the counterinsurgency strategy the president wanted, and to avoid losing to the Taliban.
General Petraeus, Admiral Mullen, General Zinni, and Ike Skelton (chair, House Armed Services), Diane Feinstein (chair Senate Intel) agreed. Six weeks later, Obama is still dithering. Rahm Emanuel was on the Sunday shows using the uncertainty in Afghan elections as the latest excuse. Robert Kaplan wrote in the Atlantic:
The Afghan people have survived three decades of war by hedging their bets. Now, watching a young and inexperienced American president appear to waiver on his commitment to their country, they are deciding, at the level of both the individual and the mass, whether to make their peace with the Taliban — even as the Taliban itself can only take solace and encouragement from Obama’s public agonizing. Meanwhile, fundamentalist elements of the Pakistani military, opposed to the recent crackdown against local Taliban, are also taking heart from developments in Washington. …This is how coups and revolutions get started, by the middle ranks sensing weakness in foreign support for their superiors.
Obama’s wobbliness also has a corrosive effect on the Indians and the Iranians. India desperately needs a relatively secular Afghan regime in place to bolster Hindu India’s geopolitical position against radical Islamdom, and while the country enjoyed an excellent relationship with Bush, Obama’s dithering is making it nervous. And Iran in observing Washington’s indecision, can only feel more secure in its creeping economic annexation of western Afghanistan.
At the White House, the dithering goes on. The meetings are now referred to as “seminars”, but strategic decisions seem to be left, not to the world’s best generals, but, of course, to the president and Rahm Emanuel, Joe Biden and David Axlerod.
As the painting says: I THINK MAYBE I’LL…MAYBE…YES…
xxxxxxxwait a minute…
xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Second Thought…
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx MAYBE NO..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyet
Filed under: Freedom, History, National Security, The Elephant's Child | Tags: The Gathering Storm, Unteachability of Mankind, Winston Churchill
One of the first acts of Barack Obama when he moved into the White House, was to order the bust of Winston Churchill, on loan from the British Government, packed up and sent back to England.
Winston Churchill: Speech to the House of Commons, May 2, 1935.
It is possible that the dangers into which we are steadily advancing would never have arisen…[but] when the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which might have effected a cure.
Churchill provided his own answer:
There is nothing new to the story. It is as old as [Rome]. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong — these are features which constitute the endless repetition of history.
Filed under: American Elephant, Foreign Policy, Military, National Security, News | Tags: Afghanistan, Obama, Support the Troops!
Update: Welcome Red State Readers!
Thanks to Moe Lane for the link! While you’re here, we hope you’ll have a look around our humble little blog and tell us what you think. We also make some pretty cool t-shirts, buttons, stickers and other fun stuff, so, you may want to check out some of our hottest items, or have a look at our CafePress Store.
Obama has taken ownership of the war in Afghanistan. Since the presidential campaign, he has characterized it as the good war while he calls the Iraq war (despite liberating 24 million people, and turning an avowed enemy and a rogue dictator into a democratic ally) a mistake.
Meanwhile, things have not been going well in Afghanistan of late. Restrictive rules of engagement are getting our troops killed while the president hems and haws about what to do.
On the one hand, the loss will be Obama’s — he cannot blame it on President Bush — and no president wants that kind of legacy. On the other hand, our allies continue to leave the theater, and Obama’s base, the left, have finally gotten the courage up to admit that their prior support of the Afghan war was always a lie (Imagine that!) and they want to bail on that war as well.
With that in mind, come two headlines today:
White House: Obama to take ‘Next several weeks’ to review strategy and,
Tony Blair to head the EU within weeks.
Now we all know Tony Blair has his head on straight about both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and resolutely so. Is Obama then waiting for Blair’s leadership to give him the political cover to send more troops to Afghanistan? Or are the stories unrelated, and Obama simply finds himself too busy trying to secure Olympic contracts for his Chicago cronies and seizing the American health-care system for his union thugs to bother himself with little things like terrorism, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and our troops lives?
Let’s hope it’s the former.
Time will tell.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, National Security, Terrorism, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Democrat Demagogues, Iran, Mushy Multilateralism, The United Nations
Wednesday, September 23— President Obama speaks to the United Nations General Assembly. He says “if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards…then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.”
Thursday, September 24— President Obama chaired a session of the U.N. Security Council. When the Security Council passed a new resolution which never mentions Iran or North Korea, Obama pounded his gavel and proclaimed: “The resolution we passed today will also strengthen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We have made it clear that the Security Council has both the authority and the responsibility to respond to violations to this treaty. We’ve made it clear that the Security Council has both the authority and responsibility to determine and respond as necessary when violations of this treaty threaten international peace and security. That includes full compliance with Security Council resolutions on Iran and North Korea. Let me be clear. This is not about singling out individual nations….[W]e must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.”
Friday, September 25— Speaking to the G-20 in Pittsburgh, President Obama admitted that “yesterday in Vienna, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France presented detailed evidence to the IAEA demonstrating that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years….The existence of this facility underscores Iran’s continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions…Iran’s decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime…[T]he size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program. Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow… [and is; threatening the stability and security of the region and the world."
So when President Obama spoke to the General Assembly and the Security Council, he already knew that Iran's latest violations of "international standards" endangered peace, but he refused to put Iran on the agenda of the Security Council summit. So he made a perfectly useless speech, and got a perfectly useless resolution.
As a matter of fact, the president has known since last fall, before he was inaugurated that Iran had another facility at Qom. He knew when Iranians took to the streets to protest an illegitimate election, and he refused to offer any encouraging words. The demonstrations continue, but words in favor of liberty have not been forthcoming.
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France [France!] in the U.N.’s translation from the French said…“President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council Resolutions… I support America’s extended hand. But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping of the map a Member of the United Nations.
As Jules Crittenden said: “It’s a sad state of affairs when a Frenchman mocks an American president and you have to go with the frog.”
From his statement on Friday, Obama said: “The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program.” Gosh! You think?
The regime in Iran is corrupt, willing to use terror as a weapon at home and abroad. It has demonstrated over and over that it will stop at nothing to acquire nuclear weapons, and that it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and of the United States.
Lest you think that President Obama has no particular foreign policy beyond a mushy hope for “meaningful dialogue” maybe around December or so, that he is unconcerned about a nuclear holocaust, never fear. He says that if the international community does not act swiftly to deal with climate change that “we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”
“The security and stability of each nation and all peoples — our prosperity, our health, and our safety — are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.” But then the World Wildlife Fund and other environmental activist groups say the President’s speech didn’t go far enough, that it was an opportunity missed.
Well, it’s always especially nice when everybody has their priorities straight.That one degree of warming we had last century, back before 1998, was really worrying. Now that the climate’s been cooling for the last ten years we are facing “irreversible catastrophe”— but nuclear attacks — that’s so, so 20th century!
Filed under: American Elephant, Liberalism, National Security, News, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear | Tags: Democrat Corruption, Democrat Lies/Dirty Tricks, Obama
By cutting border control agents:
Even though the Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached,” and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week–as I first reported in my column yesterday–that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1.[read more]
Democrats have already stated that as soon as they are done destroying American health care, amnesty is next on their agenda.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Middle East, National Security, The Elephant's Child | Tags: Czech Republic, Missile Defense, Poland
Today, September 17th, was the 70th Anniversary of the Soviet Invasion of Poland. President Obama celebrated by scrapping the missile defense sites that were planned for Poland and the Czech Republic.
Poland was informed in a midnight phone call. The issue of the missile defense sites had caused constant bluster and threats from Putin and his fellows in the Kremlin who pretended to believe that the small number of interceptor missiles was somehow a threat to Russia although the system is purely defensive.
Obama’s case is that the Iranian ballistic missile threat “has not emerged” as soon as originally estimated, and that currently proven tactical antimissile capability is better suited and more ready for deployment against the current threat. This refers to the Aegis-missile ship patrols in either the Black Sea or the Baltic.
Unfortunately this was also the day that the International Atomic Energy Agency experts expressed their agreement that Iran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by the Associated Press.
Obama spoke about the decision today with a lot of bluster and little clarity, but what it seems to boil down to is an attempt to pacify Putin in the hopes that he will help out with Iran, which Putin has declared that he has no intention of doing.
The Russians seem to think that they should be free to threaten Europe with anything from nuclear annihilation to cut-off of energy, and that anything that interferes with that is provocative.
The concession to Russian sensibilities will gain America nothing, and weakens America’s bargaining position. Obama’s justification is weak in its assumption that defense against a longer-range missile is not needed on Obama’s planning scale. There isn’t any basis for this assumption, and it makes Obama appear weak and easily manipulated.
The missile-defense site in Eastern Europe which as well as protecting our European allies was meant to be the third arm of defense against long-range missiles approaching North America from the Arctic, the Far East and the Middle East. The idea of more than one defense seems to have escaped consideration.
It’s hard to understand the Obama view. He has pandered to Saudi Arabia, which has rejected his approaches. Approaches to Syria have resulted in increased violence in Iraq, interference with Lebanese democracy and encouragement of Palestinian extremism. Russia’s reset seems to leave them free to interfere with their neighbors. Cuba has rebuffed Obama’s approaches. Anti-Americanism has increased in Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey. It seems that it has little to do with the America’s imperial ambitions and does not relate to specific administrations.
American actions have much farther-reaching consequences that the Obama administration seems to grasp. Perceptions by other nations and their national interests may have little to do with Obama’a charisma and speechmaking gift. Our friends want to know that they can depend on us. Our enemies need to know that we are stalwart, and mean what we say.
Filed under: American Elephant, Democrat Corruption, National Security, Politics, Terrorism | Tags: 9/11, Democrat Lies/Dirty Tricks, Obama
Because they think this…
is an appropriate way to memorialize this…
It’s not. It’s shameful.
Just so you know, the entirely inappropriate idea of turning the anniversary of the biggest attack on our nation’s soil since the War of 1812 into a “Day of Service” is an orchestrated, cynical political ploy by Democrats who feared that remembering 9/11 would be of political benefit to Republicans, and so wanted to “take back 9/11″ — apparently by ignoring it altogether, or at best giving it very short shrift.
A quick moment of silence, and then spend the rest of the day installing compact fluorescent light bulbs or recycling! Grrrr!
Don’t get me wrong. I am all for volunteerism (and not meaningless, time-wasting “green” volunteerism, but volunteerism that actually helps). And unlike Obama, I believe volunteering means volunteering, not being paid. But my response to Democrats’ outrageous “Day of Service” proposal, is the same as your parents told you when you were a small child and you asked them why there is a Mother’s Day and a Father’s Day but no “Children’s Day” — because every day is children’s day! Likewise, helping others is something we should be doing all year long, not on some designated holiday once a year. But if you make a “National Service Day” that is precisely what you promote: one day of service.
More importantly, remembering, and in so doing, comparing, the service of police and firefighters who lost their lives racing into towering infernos trying to save others by painting living rooms, is not honoring their service at ALL, it is a MOCKERY of their sacrifice! Not to mention a mockery of the attacks.
Oh, how I wish I had more time to blog about this. As you can tell, it’s got my dander up. The more I think about it the more incensed I am.
This must not stand. This must not become a national tradition. I expect Republicans, as soon as they get back in power, to restore the focus of this day where it should be, on the attacks and response to 9/11.
What do you think?
