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

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden

  • Navy preparing for ops against Nork shipping

    You’ve probably all read by now that the Pentagon on Tuesday warned that North Korea is about three years out of having missiles that can strike the mainland US;

    North Korea’s missiles could hit the United States in as few as three years if the reclusive rogue nation continues to ramp up its weapons system, Pentagon officials said Tuesday.

    At a Tuesday morning Senate hearing on missile defense, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn pointed to Pyongyang’s recent steps to accelerate its long-range weapons program and agreed with Sen. John McCain, a Republican that the U.S. should be prepared for a “worst-case scenario” with North Korea.

    And that a Japanese newspaper is warning that North Korea will try to fire a missile towards Hawaii in the next few weeks;

    North Korea may fire a long-range ballistic missile toward Hawaii in early July, a Japanese news report said Thursday, as Russia and China urged the regime to return to international disarmament talks on its rogue nuclear program.

    The missile, believed to be a Taepodong-2 with a range of up to 4,000 miles (6,500 kilometers), would be launched from North Korea’s Dongchang-ni site on the northwestern coast, said the Yomiuri daily, Japan’s top-selling newspaper. It cited an analysis by the Japanese Defense Ministry and intelligence gathered by U.S. reconnaissance satellites.

    The missile launch could come between July 4 and 8, the paper said.

    The Star and Stripes is reporting that US Navy elements are preparing to conduct operations against North Korean shipping;

    The U.S. Navy, acting on authority granted by the United Nations, is prepared to intercept North Korean ships and request permission to search them for arms or nuclear technology, a Pentagon official said Tuesday.

    Sailors cannot board a ship by force, but if an inspection is refused, the Navy can follow it to the next port and again press for an inspection. The approach is authorized by a U.N. Security Council resolution approved Friday.

    President Barack Obama and visiting South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said at the White House on Tuesday that the resolution must be fully enforced, but noted that it did not authorize military force. Lee said he and Obama agreed that “under no circumstance are we going to allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons.”

    “Under no circumstances”…well, unless the North Koreans insist on possessing nuclear weapons, of course. And lets tell them all in advance that we can’t use force. That won’t cost any unnecessary casualties, will it? What’s the point?

    Obama missed his opportunity to get tough with the North Koreans when he didn’t shoot down that first missile a few weeks back. Tough talk won’t stop Il, just like it hasn’t stopped anyone else. Maybe if the Navy parked off the North Korean shores (outside the 12 mile limit, of course) and shook their fists in unison – that might stop them.

  • GAO enters gun debate

    The Wall Street Journal‘s Evan Perez reports this morning that the Government Accountability Office announced that “most” of the guns used by criminals in Mexico come from the United States;

    Drug-related murders have more than doubled in number to 6,200 last year from 2,700 in 2007, according to the GAO study, a draft of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The study is set to be released Thursday.

    Mexican officials have pushed for the U.S. to enact tougher gun laws and to help restrict arms smuggling as Mexico attempts to battle drug cartels on its territory.

    “The availability of firearms illegally flowing from the United States into Mexico has armed and emboldened a dangerous criminal element in Mexico, and it has made the job of drug cartels easier,” said Rep. Eliot L. Engel, (D., N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere….

    Ya know what’s funny (not funny, ha-ha) – we’ve been asking Mexico to tighten up their side of the border and help stem the flow of people and drugs for decades. Now that the Mexicans are reaping what they’ve sown along the border, they expect us to change our Constitution to help them. And of course, the Democrats are willing to bow and scrape to them.

    I own several weapons that Democrats would classify as “assault weapons”. Some I’ve owned for decades. I’ve never committed a crime with them, and the rifles were never even pointed at another human. I suspect most gun owners can claim the same responsible ownership.

    So why are we the ones who have to relinquish our rights? Just like those of us who’ve always provided health care for our families are now being told to pay for the irresponsible. Funny how law abiding people are always the ones who have to abide by more and more laws.

  • On that war funding bill vote

    One of our commenters, Another Disgrunted IVAW “member” wrote last night;

    Looks like 170 Republicans voted against the troops today. Why do they hate us? They send us to war and don’t want us to have the necessary equipment to win the wars.

    He/She is talking about this vote yesterday on the war funding bill;

    The 226-202 roll call Tuesday by which the House approved a $106 billion bill to ensure financing for war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the coming months.

    A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the bill.

    Voting yes were 221 Democrats and 5 Republicans.

    Voting no were 32 Democrats and 170 Republicans.

    A quick look through the news turned up the reason why so many Republicans voted against the bill like this one from Reuters;

    The House of Representatives on Tuesday narrowly backed a $106 billion bill to pay for the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and extend billions in new credit to the International Monetary Fund.

    The legislation also includes extras like vouchers to spur U.S. car sales, and comes after a series of political battles that exposed the sharp fissures between President Barack Obama’s Democrats and the Republican minority.

    In fact, Republicans mostly opposed the $108 billion for the IMF (doesn’t the Left hate the IMF?) which they called an international bailout. Oh, yeah, and the spending bill included lots of little extras that had nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan and Iraq

    The legislation also ballooned after Obama sought billions of dollars to combat the H1N1 flu virus which has now become a pandemic. Lawmakers nearly doubled his request of $4 billion to $7.7 billion, though $5.8 billion is contingent on needs.

    From the Dayton Daily News;

    “What does a $108 billion global bailout have to do with protecting our troops and giving them the tools they need for victory?” asked House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio.

    I find it a little disingenuous of Democrats, and commenters, who didn’t complain about Democrats trying to pull funding out from the troops for the last two years and now suddenly want to denigrate Republicans for opposing Democrat spending sprees with legitimate concerns.

    TSO ADDED: I hope Jonn will forgive me for weighing in on his post, but the majority of Congressmen of both parties voting against this that I talked to also cited the conference taking out the Senate language blocking release of the photos.   This coupled with the non-military, non-emergency stuff in the supplemental (which is off budget) is what sealed the deal on the no votes.  It should be noted that there was still another month before these funds were needed.  The promise of Obama to block the release doesn’t ring true with a lot of folks.

  • Chaka Fattah meets Neil Cavuto (Video added)

    I just watched Neil Cavuto interview Congressman Chaka Fattah on Cavuto’s show. I’ve never listened to Fattah before, but I get impression that Fattah is another one of those double talking hucksters that made Philadelphia famous. If I find the video, I’ll put it up here – but I guarantee that you’ll be chucking things at the screen like I did.

    UPDATE: I added the video at 6:40AM June 17;

    Cavuto’s main point that he was trying to get Fattah to admit was that this health care bill was actually a tax hike on working Americans. Fattah wandered all over the map trying to avoid answering. He preached about what he learned in church about giving to the least of us. He said that the President has promised that we don’t have to participate in the government health plan and we can keep our own current plan.

    Fattah said that he didn’t know who was going to pay for this healthcare plan “whether it’s the rich or corporations” or whether it’s just those of us who decide not to participate and keep our own insurance – while we pay for everyone else’s health insurance as well as our own.

    He even said that 95% of Americans got a tax cut. We did? My Army pension shot up $64/month. Is that the tax cut he’s talking about? That was just a reduction in my withholding – it doesn’t affect my tax bill at the end of the year. I finally figured out my withholding and the Democrats just screwed me all up. Just like they did in 1993.

    And since we got that whopping tax cut – is that justification to slam us with someone else’s health insurance bill?

    I have a rule of thumb; as soon as an interviewee begins an answer with either phrase “Well, look…” or “I mean…”, I’m about to hear a lie. Fattah began every answer with “Well, look….”

    In fairness, he probably didn’t lie – but he didn’t say anything to convince me he wasn’t.

  • Alo Presidente

    Hoping to cuddle with the new president, ABC News has decided to do an infomercial for the Administration on June 24th, according to the Drudge Report. They’ll film a live prime time special from the White House on the president’s health care plan without offering any opposing voices. Kinda like Hugo Chavez’ weekly rants on Venezuelan TV.

    Drudge reprints the RNC protest that ABC isn’t giving a fair airing of the opposition view. ABC, in turn answers on their web presence. It’s really rather humorous – ABC outraged that Republicans think they’re biased. DrewM at Ace of Spades summarized ABC response; “…shut up you f***ing whack jobs, we are the deciders.”

    But here’s the quote from ABC;

    Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.

    Yeah, I’m sure it’ll be a huge audience. On a June night, several hours long, the only folks watching will be bloggers looking for that one slip that will propel them into the ionosphere overnight. I can’t picture families huddled around their TVs taking notes.

    Other than the fact that ABC has decided to jump straight into the bag for Obama, there’s really no story here. What could this possibly accomplish? It’s not like there’s going to be a referendum on socialized health care (although, there really should be – the wonks might be surprised).

    It’s all just that feel-good ownership bull sh*t that won Obama the election. We all know that every damn Democrat is going to vote for this economy-killer and they’re in the majority. And the Democrats will vote for it for no other reason than to buy the votes of the ignorant, pliant masses who think government health care is the answer to overpriced medical treatment.

    I don’t know how ABC even thought this was a good idea – it just illustrates how stupid these TV execs are these days. I wonder how long before NBC, CBS or CNN offer Obama three hours every week in his red shirt and beret. Maybe The Sniper can give us a preview of how that’d look.

  • Recount in Iran?

    After seven Iranians were killed yesterday in Tehran by the militia, the Guardian Council has decided there will be a partial recount of votes in Iran. Opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi has called for a new election as well as asking his supporters to stay out of the streets today to prevent more casualties. (Washington Post)

    So far, the council has said it would recount only those votes where the opposition has evidence suggesting a problem may have occurred.

    According to Fox News this morning, Ahmadinejad’s supporters have taken to the streets – I wonder how many of them will be killed by militia forces.

    President Obama votes not present;

    Obama said reports of violence that followed Iranian elections trouble him and all Americans. He said peaceful dissent should never be subject to violence that followed weekend elections that gave Ahmadinejad a second term.

    “It would be wrong for me to be silent on what we’ve seen on the television the last few days,” Obama told reporters at the White House.

    Obama said he had no way of knowing the results were valid — he said the United States had no election monitors in the country — but it was important that the voters’ choices be respected.

    Mike’s America compares a Bush speech at Flopping Aces.

    Senator John McCain was a bit tougher on both Iran and Obama (for a change); (AP link)

    McCain… said the president “should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed, sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights.”

    Meanwhile, BDS continues to wrack the poor readers of the Washington Post;
    granny-wapo

    Yeah, granny02, if the Republicans are so good at stealing elections, what happened in the last one? What? Did we just forget how to do it?

    Associated Press is also reporting that the foreign media is restricted and being forced from the country;

    Authorities restricted journalists, including Iranians working for foreign media from reporting on the streets, and said they could only work from their offices, conducting telephone interviews and monitoring official sources such as state television.

    The rules prevent media outlets, including The Associated Press, from sending independent photos or video of street protests or rallies.

    Also Tuesday, foreign reporters in Iran to cover last week’s elections began leaving the country. Iranian officials said they will not extend their visas.

    So, with the rest of the world unable to summon the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the Iranian regime, it appears those seven died in vain yesterday.

  • USS John McCain at Sasebo

    mccain
    The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, USS John S. McCain has arrived at Sasebo for repairs after a Chinese sub collided with the ship’s towed-array sonar last Thursday according to Stars and Stripes.

    “We do not discuss detailed operational capabilities or locations of our ships,” 7th Fleet spokesman Cmdr. Jeff Davis said.

    He did say the McCain was operating in international waters and conducting routine operations. The McCain’s home port is Yokosuka Naval Base, about 750 miles by land from Sasebo.

    The Associated Press reported that a senior researcher with the People’s Liberation Army’s Navy Equipment Research Center, Yin Zhuo, said the collision was likely an accident. He said the American destroyer appeared to have failed to detect the submarine, while the Chinese vessel set its distance from the McCain assuming it was not carrying sonar arrays, according to the state-run China Daily.

    Ya know, I remember a similar incident about eight years ago in which a Chinese jet collided with an American plane. Now granted, that incident involved a crash landing and hostages, much more dramatic, but it seems like it was declared a “test” of the new American President. Funny how it’s always a Chinese craft colliding with a US craft, isn’t it?

  • Panetta: Cheney hoping for terrorist attack

    I’m sure you’ve heard that our new CIA director, Leon Panetta, claimed in an upcoming New Yorker magazine interview that it seems that former Vice President Dick Cheney talks as if he’s hoping for another terrorist attack on the US. From the Washington Times;

    CIA Director Leon Panetta says former Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism of the Obama administration’s approach to terrorism almost suggests the former vice president would be glad of a major terrorist attack as vindicating his criticism of President Obama.

    “I think he smells some blood in the water on the national security issue,” Mr. Panetta said in an interview published in the New Yorker magazine’s June 22 issue.

    Well, I wonder if Panetta was hoping the war in Iraq against al Qeada would fail when he wrote the following paragraph in a commentary from his Leon Panetta Institute entitled “Surge Not Working as Hoped”;

    In our report, the Iraq Study Group concluded that “because none of the operations conducted by U.S. and Iraq military forces are fundamentally changing the conditions encouraging the sectarian violence, U.S. forces seem to be caught in a mission that has no foreseeable end.”

    In fact, the Panetta Institute has provided us with a whole internet page of his criticisms of the Bush Administration. Can we assume that Leon Panetta was hoping the Bush Administration would fail?

    Did any of the CIA directors under President Bush state that criticism of the Administration was an expression of hope we would be attacked again? I guess that’s the problem when you hire a politician to do a sheepdog‘s job.

    Vice President Cheney is merely defending the policies of his administration. If Panetta is so sensitive, maybe he should go back to tossing stones at glass houses from the safety of his nondescript “institute” instead of living in a glass house.