This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden

  • Underpants bomber talking

    According to testimony to the Senate yesterday as reported in the Washington Post, the Underoos bomber is talking again;

    Separately, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told senators at an intelligence committee hearing that Abdulmutallab was giving information to investigators. Mueller did not elaborate.

    The disclosures that the Nigerian student is cooperating with criminal investigators come amid a fierce debate in Congress over the Obama administration’s handling of the case and, more broadly, its approach to national security.

    A report from Associated Press;

    The break came when US interrogators brought Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s family to the US to convince him to cooperate.

    U.S. investigators flew members of Abdulmutallab’s family from Nigeria to the United States on Jan. 17, the senior administration official said. The family members have proved vital in getting Abdulmutallab to talk, he said — indicating that it would have been counterproductive to interrogate him under military rules, as some have suggested.

    They act like this makes up for Underoo’s clamming up after he was read his Miranda rights. Hardly. Do they think that terrorists don’t read newspapers? Any intelligence he could have provided after those first 50 minutes is now stale. Any training locations have certainly been dismantled, any trainers and contacts are in the wind. So why would they bother interrogating now? To build future legal cases.

    It’s all such a waste of time.

    ADDED: Of course dicksmith sees this as a vidication of Tony Camerino’s assertion that we don’t need enhanced interrogation techniques to extract information;

    Silly me, I thought only torture techniques like water boarding, slamming into walls, sleep deprivation for 180 hours, placement in insect boxes or food deprivation above 1,000 calories a day could get a suspected al Queda [sic] terrorist to give reliable intelligence.

    But we’re getting this information a month after it’s already stale. As DrewM at Ace of Spades accurately points out, this is a unique case. How many family members of these goat ropers are willing to help the US? Of course, we’re extracting old information – so what’s to celebrate?

  • My apathy shows itself again.

    For anyone that has heard of Darfur and the Sudan region has most likely heard of the many problems going on there. This is not something new and like any other conflict zones there is a almost a repeated monotone message condemning the fighting. But with out any real follow through to be then forgotten by what is the next breaking crisis around the world. In short unless it happens in one’s immediate area, most people could care less. So keep that in mine as we go into the this video.

    (more…)

  • So you thought you could keep your health insurance, huh?

    So after almost two years of hearing about how we can keep our health insurance coverage under the new Obama plan, “maybe” we can’t now?

    So someone snuck it in, Huh? When? Over Christmas while we were all distracted by the Victoria Secret bomber?

  • More News On Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

    In my last post, I addressed some of the big issues concerning how the DoD would go about repealing DADT. According to an article from the AP, the DoD has apparently begun to address some of the same issues that I brought up in my previous post. I am happy to hear that the DoD is at least making the right noises in preparing for a potential lifting of DADT. Gates and Adm Mullen are also going to testify in front of the Senate Armed Service Committee on the issues facing the military in regards to DADT. I still believe (and so do most political commentators including the author of the AP article I link to) that there will not be any changes to DADT this year. The focus is obviously on the economy and the 2010 election and I realistically don’t see the Democrats in Congress or the President making repealing DADT a centerpiece of their 2010 agenda.

    My personal feelings on DADT are a bit conflicted and my mind is not completely made up on the issue. I do not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in combat arms units or on submarines. I don’t believe this because I buy into a stereotype of gay men/women as “weak” or “girlie”. The living conditions in these units  do not allow for the ability to segregate gay and straight soldiers/sailors/Marines and adding sexual tension (and I don’t care what anybody says that tension will exist no matter how many people say otherwise) to an already stressful environment that exists in these combat units is a dangerous mix. These are some of the same reasons why we do not allow women to serve in combat arms units. On the issue of gays serving in other MOSes, I am not sure that this would effect the capability of some of these units. Again, I spent my four years in security force and infantry units, so my experience with non-combat arms MOSes is limited, but nobody can argue that they operate differently. I certainly don’t believe that there should be quotas for gay enlisted and officer promotions to insure that there isn’t discrimination against them. There is so many things wrong with that I don’t even know where to start with that one. The military is meritocracy (thats why many on the left dislike it) and promotions should be based on ability not on race, sexual orientation, or anything else. I also don’t believe that men and women who were discharged under DADT should be allowed to reenlist/recommission. Right or wrong, they violated a stated DoD policy by revealing their sexual orientation. The only exception I would make is the ones who were maybe involuntarily outed.  If the United States were to legalize pot, should we let everybody who was kicked out because of drug pop on a piss test? Absolutely not.

    Again, the overall point I want to make on DADT is that is far from a simple issue that can just be changed overnight. There are serious implication for our military, which is currently engaged in active combat operations all over the world.

  • Is there terrorism in Obama World?

    For months we’ve had the discussion here about whether Carlos Bledsoe and Nidal Hasan were jihadist terrorists and I’m pretty sure the evidence is overwhelming. Most Americans are probably convinced of that fact. But in both cases, the feds have been unwilling to call it terrorism, let alone mention radical Islam in relation to the incidents. They are even reluctant to admit that Mr. Underwear Bomber is a terrorist. This morning, the Washington Times asks if the Obama Administration even knows terrorism exists at all;

    It’s not clear what the Obama administration thinks terrorism is, if it thinks it exists at all. The administration doggedly maintains that political, especially jihadist, violence by individuals with no international linkage is not terrorism. This definition might come as a surprise to the Unabomber, who for years was the most sought-after terrorist in America.

    President Obama’s knee-jerk response that the Christmas Day bombing plot was not terror-related was probably one of the factors that led Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to be Mirandized quickly and treated as a criminal suspect. It shouldn’t matter that this was a domestic incident; he is a jihadist warrior, and the aircraft was his battlefield.

    The other day, I wondered what Lloyd Woodson was planning. The Obama Administration denied that he was motivated by terrorism or Islam, but the Times says otherwise;

    A report by the Northeast Intelligence Network reveals that, according to a member of New Jersey law enforcement, Mr. Woodson’s personal effects “not only associate him with ‘radical Islam,’ but also with a ‘militant Islamic group.’ ” But as the two cases mentioned above indicate, even this would not qualify him as a terrorist under the Obama administration’s narrow definition.

    So, what will convince the Obama Administration that there are indeed domestic terrorists here (that don’t have right-wing leanings) and that we’re under attack?

  • Rob Diamond is his own prop

    I found an article on Huffington Post about Republicans using the troops as props most disingenuous written by some illiterate buffoon named Rob Diamond. In the article he complains about all of the times that Republicans have included veterans in some of their events. Mostly, Diamond was upset that a Staff Sergeant sat behind Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell during his Republican response to the State of the Union Address Wednesday night;

    Slight problem, you see. That is probably against the law.

    Look it up for yourself right here in the Department of Defense (DoD) Directive entitled “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces.” The purpose of this DoD Directive is to mirror the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from engaging in partisan political activity in an official capacity. Since a DoD Directive is considered to be in the same category as an order or regulation, and military personnel violating its provisions can be considered in violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, our Republican friends may have just caused this brave young soldier to break the law. Thank you for that, Governor McDonnell.

    Ya know what I’d do before I laid out a legal case against this Staff Sergeant? I’d check to see if he’s in the Virginia National Guard and therefore not subject to DoD policy – and under the command of his governor. But that’s just me – my readers hold me to a higher standard for accuracy than Diamond’s readers, apparently.

    Diamond goes on to point out all of the times Republicans have used the troops for props;

    “Mission Accomplished?” Remember that one! Or just consider Sarah Palin’s latest attempt to hold a rally (aka “book tour”) on Fort Bragg this past November. Well, you can now add “Republican Response 2010” to what is a rather endless list, actually.

    An endless list? And those are two that Diamond came up with first? Really? When I was stationed at Fort Bragg, back when books were popular and pretty much had a corner on the reading media market, every author worth his salt who wanted to sell books went to Fort Bragg. According to the 2000 Census, it has a population of 29,000 soldiers and their families who all have jobs and money. It spreads across four North Carolina counties, and there were probably some locals in that line to buy books.

    Our friend Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette provides some examples of Democrats using troops for “props”, but I submit that Rob Diamond, the self-proclaimed arbiter of what qualifies as using troops for props, uses his own career in the Navy as a prop for Democrats;

    Robert Diamond is an investment banker focused on the commercial real estate industry. Before his career in finance, Robert served for seven years as an officer in the United States Navy. A Surface Warfare Officer by training, he was stationed onboard the guided missile destroyer USS BULKELEY (DDG-84) and completed deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Robert served as the aide to the Navy’s Chief of Legislative Affairs in the Pentagon, and as a Navy liaison officer to the U.S. House of Representatives. He is a Security Fellow with the Truman National Security Project and a graduate of the United States Naval Academy. He speaks and publishes regularly on issues related to national security, the military and veterans affairs. Robert lives and works in NYC.

    I swear, every news story leading up to the State of the Union Address mentioned some military member who was invited to attend by some member of Congress. Like this one who was invited to sit next to the First Lady. But I guess that doesn’t rise to level of a prop at HuffPo.

    If you want a real giggle, read this paragraph from the HuffPo piece;

    It has taken a Democratic President and a Democratic-led Congress to end the war in Iraq as well as finally commit the troops, resources and strategy necessary to win in Afghanistan. And yes, it has been President Obama and a Democratic Congress that has given the VA the largest budget increase in its history ($15 billion dollars in 2010) and is working tirelessly to create a 21st Century VA to care for our newest generation of Veterans.

    Yep, the Democrats are claiming they ended the war in Iraq. All the while, Republicans are using the troops as props.

  • Unanswered Questions About Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

    In the President’s State of the Union, just like he did as a candidate and on multiple occasions during his first year as President, Obama promised to work towards ending the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. The Obama Administration has said it does not have the power to end DADT through executive order and that the only constitutional way to repeal the policy is through Congress. I don’t think this is even going to be a priority for the administration and Congress, with the obvious focus being on jobs, healthcare, and of course the 2010 election which are now only about nine months away. However, I am bothered by the way politicians and media discuss DADT, just like I am bothered by the shallow way that most issues involving the military are discussed. It is implied that all that needs to happen with DADT is that Congress and the President need to wave a magic wand and gays can serve openly the next day without a hitch. I’m pretty sure that most readers of this blog and anybody who has served in the military knows that this is not the case. There are serious policy, operational, logistical, and of course fiscal issues that the repeal of DADT poses to our military, which is in the middle of a very kinetic fight in Afghanistan and massive drawdown in Iraq.

    Lets go over some of the questions that nobody in the Obama administration or Congress has addressed in regards to repealing DADT:

    1. Will there be seperate barracks, berthing, and living quarters for homosexuals?

    With the Army and Marine Corps having expanded over the past three years and with the Navy changing its policies on living on ship while in port, there is a severe shortage of housing for both single and married military personnel. Not to mention that on naval vessels there is already limited berthing spaces for sailors/Marines. Mandating that homosexuals have their own living quarters (like some colleges and universities do) will require new construction of barracks and a complete rearrangement and reconfiguring of hundreds of naval vessels. On the other hand, allowing homosexuals to live with heterosexuals, will cause a whole different set of headaches for military commanders.

    2. Will homosexuals be allowed to serve in combat arms units?

    Women are forbidden by Congress to serve in combat arms units (infantry, arty, tanks, etc.). Some of the same issues surrounding women serving in combat units are present in the debate over gays serving openly in these same units.

    3. Will people discharged under DADT be allowed to reenlist/recommission in the military if the policy is repealed?

    I don’t know how many people who were discharged under DADT would want to reenter the military, but there are even more questions that need to be answered if they are allowed to reenter. Will they retain their same rank/billet regardless how long they have been out? Will they get retroactive promotions?

    4. If homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military, will the military recognize and award benefits to gay marriages or civil unions?

    5. Will each service be allowed to craft its own policies regarding homosexuals?

    Each service has its own operational needs and missions. Will the DoD have an across the board policy or like with women will each service be given some degree of freedom to craft its own policies?

    And finally…

    6. How much money is repealing DADT going to cost?

    Everytime the military changes a policy, it costs money. A major policy change like this one is going to cost that Defense Department a lot of money to implement and the amount depends a lot on the answers to the questions that I have posed. Thats money that can be spent on things like body armor, new vehicles, new guns, or any number of things that are important to an effective military.

    If anybody has any links to the Obama administration addressing these issues in writing or on video, I would greatly appreciate it if you provided the links in the comment sections.

  • State of the Union critique

    Our friend at Rochester Conservative, the phantomlord, did the heavy lifting for us by providing an excellent point-by-point critique of the State of the Union Address. So those of you who were depending on This Ain’t Hell to provide you with an analysis can go read phantomlord’s instead.

    Maybe later on they’ll do a piece on O’Keefe and shut Peskoff up for awhile.