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

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden

  • Naturalization ceremony for troops

    Naturalization ceremony for troops

    naturalization ceremony

    In case you missed the news, President Obama took time out today to witness the swearing in of our newest US citizens at a ceremony in the White House. Before the ceremony, this message came out from the White House staff;

    On Friday, July 4th, as our nation celebrates its birthday, President Obama will host a naturalization ceremony at the White House for active duty military service members and their spouses, as well as veterans and reservists. The President sees this important White House tradition as an opportunity to reiterate his commitment to an immigration policy that honors our rich history as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. The President has previously hosted and participated in naturalization ceremonies at the White House in 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013.

    The ceremony, which the President will deliver remarks at, will recognize the contributions made by foreign-born members of the U.S. Armed Forces who have earned their American citizenship by serving our country, and the contributions that immigrants from all walks of life have made to our country throughout its history. Fifteen active duty service members serving in the Navy, U.S. Army, Marines, and Air Force, two veterans, one reservist and seven military spouses will receive their citizenship, together representing 15 countries. Joining these men and women at Friday’s ceremony will be military service members, their families, and community leaders who continue to advocate for commonsense immigration reform.

    On it’s face, it looks like another ceremony celebrating “the troops” from this administration, but the little cynical creature that lives in my head these days, read this line that I’d missed;

    The President sees this important White House tradition as an opportunity to reiterate his commitment to an immigration policy that honors our rich history as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.

    In other words, once again the President is dragging those in uniform into the political debate, and this time, it’s about immigration. He cloaks a political discussion in terms of the military. And, if anyone thinks that we are truly a “nation of laws” we wouldn’t be having this discussion about whether they’re illegal aliens or not.

    Yeah, generations ago, my antecedents immigrated here. My mother’s side of the family were early colonists in Massachusetts, while my father’s family came through Ellis Island in 1899 – you know, the legal way. My wife is an immigrant. We went through all of the paperwork to get her admitted legally and we jump through hoops every couple of years so she can remain. In the first few years she lived here, we had to report where she lived, until Jimmy Carter thought that it was unfair that they tracked aliens in this country – you know, how we lost track of many of the 9-11 terrorists until that fateful day.

    Somehow we’re supposed to believe that those thousands who are pouring across the frontier every day are all going to join the military someday – that they’re going to do their part in this nation. At this point, that’s hard to believe since they’re all becoming a burden on the government/taxpayers already.

    But it seems to me that every time the president finds himself in a jam, he stands behind those uniforms to deflect criticism. Maybe it’s just me.

  • Dempsey: No direct action for US troops in Iraq

    The Washington Times reports that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin E. Dempsey told reporters that American troops won’t be involved in direct action against those al Qaeda-linked insurgents in Iraq (whatever they’re calling themselves today) unless they detect a direct threat to the “homeland”;

    “We may get to that point if our national interests drive us there, if ISIL becomes such a threat to the homeland that the president of the United States with our advice decides that we have to take direct action,” Gen. Dempsey said. “I’m just suggesting to you we’re not there yet.”

    His remarks follow significant hand-wringing by administration critics who argue the Pentagon lacks a clear strategy around what has, during recent weeks, become a slowly mounting deployment of U.S. military assets back to Iraq — more than 2 years since U.S. forces withdrew after an eight-year occupation.

    I guess that’s as close to the administration’s intent in Iraq as we’re going to get. But, surely, folks can understand why critics of the administration are wringing their hands – the White House has had six months since the fall of Fallujah to communicate a strategy to rescue Iraq, but we’ve heard nothing but promises of aircraft and weaponry – promises which haven’t come to fruition. Now, suddenly there are several hundred pairs of boots on the ground.

    Meanwhile, Reuters was warned that thousands of “sleeper cells” are wandering the streets of Baghdad waiting for a signal to attack that city in support of a final surge on the capitol from the insurgents;

    The officer told the news agency that there are roughly 1,500 sleeper cell members inside Baghdad and another 1,000 just outside the capital.

    “We are ready. It can come any minute,” an alleged member of one such sleeper cell told Reuters. “We will have some surprises,” he added. The news agency said that any time a stranger approached during its interview with the man he would hide his face with a baseball cap and stop talking.

    One member of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) contacted Reuters from Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul, and said that the terrorist army fully plans to take the capital.

    “We will receive orders about Zero Hour,” ISIL member Abu Sa’da told the news service Thursday.

    Now, I’m not sure if the administration would consider an attack on the Green Zone and the Americans working there an attack on “the homeland”, but I’m pretty sure that an attack there would probably drive the final nail in the coffin of this administration in regards to public opinion. Americans of all political stripes have lost confidence in this administration.

  • US troops in Somalia

    TSO sends a link from Reuters which reports that there are at least 120 US troops in Somalia according to “a U.S. defense official”;

    The deployments, consisting of up to 120 troops on the ground, go beyond the Pentagon’s January announcement that it had sent a handful of advisors in October. That was seen at the time as the first assignment of U.S. troops to Somalia since 1993 when two U.S. helicopters were shot down and 18 American troops killed in the “Black Hawk Down” disaster.

    The plans to further expand U.S. military assistance coincide with increasing efforts by the Somali government and African Union peacekeepers to counter a bloody seven-year insurgent campaign by the al Qaeda-linked al Shabaab to impose strict Islamic law inside Somalia.

    Those U.S. plans include greater military engagement and new funds for training and assistance for the Somali National Army (SNA), after years of working with the African Union Mission in Somalia, or AMISOM, which has about 22,000 troops in the country from Uganda, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Djibouti and Ethiopia.

    There’s no one more committed to fighting al Qaeda where ever they pop out their scraggly little skulls, but, ya know, I’m getting the idea that those fellas aren’t worried about the US. We’ve got troops in Central Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia. Our mission just ended in the Philippines despite the fact that there are still terrorists operating there.

    When this president had an opportunity to kill terrorists in droves in Afghanistan, he punted. Now, he’s paying that price by stomping out brush fires. Unfortunately, the price he’s paying is in blood and treasure that isn’t his. The only way to defeat terrorism is to make it more painful for the terrorists. That doesn’t appear to be happening. I was told by the folks to be smarter than me that the war against terror was creating more terrorists, but it seems that half-assed “overseas contingency operations” are creating more terrorists at a higher rate than killing them was doing.

  • Worst president since WWII

    Worst president since WWII

    I don’t pay much attention to polls, and I really don’t care about this one, either, even if it says what I think – but you want to talk about it, judging by my email inbox. But according to NBC News, 1400 or so people say that Obama is the worst President since the last one.

    “Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of Quinnipiac University’s polling unit.

    While Obama’s job approval rating has inched higher to 40 percent, up from 38 percent in December, more voters gave him largely negative marks in key areas: the economy, foreign policy, healthcare and terrorism, according to the poll.

    Personally, I think Nixon was a worse president than Bush, not because of all of that manufactured BS like using the IRS against opponents (which never happened), but rather Nixon’s handling of the economy – like that stupid “Wage and Price Freeze” thing which ended up making inflation worse. And his “detente” with the Soviet Union was pretty bad, too, as Ronald Reagan proved a decade later.

    The worst part of the Quinnipiac University poll wasn’t included in the NBC story, but it’s at the Washington Times;

    Quinnipiac found 45 percent of voters say the country would have been better off if Mr. Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, had been elected, while just 38 percent say Mr. Obama remains a better choice. Even Democrats aren’t so sure — just 74 percent of them told the pollsters Mr. Obama was clearly the better pick in the last election.

    As bad as Bush got in the public opinion polls, I don’t think anyone who was rational and objective ever said the words out loud that we would have been better off with Al Gore or John Kerry as president. Nor did anyone say “I should have voted for George McGovern” or “I wish I’d voted for Bob Dole”. So, that’s pretty bad for this president.

    But, I’m sure Obama scored well among environmentalists, immigration activists and gay activists, so he’s got that going for him. I hope veterans have learned their lesson in regards to voting for Democrats. What am I saying? They should have learned their lesson during the Carter and Clinton Administrations but they didn’t.

  • Petraeus unsurprised by Iraq

    For some reason the Washington press is making a big deal out of a speech that General David Petraeus made in regards to how he saw the conflict coming in Iraq. The Washington Times writes;

    “I think people who have watched this closely — and I’ve been one of them — have seen this coming,” he said. “There have been camps that were established just across the border of Iraq and Syria. You can see the designs. You could hear what they said. You could see this increasing terrorist violence.”

    With the war he left behind several years ago resurfacing again, Gen. Petraeus has also resurfaced to shed light on how a country that was staunchly defended and supported by the U.S. military is slowly unraveling amid a new armed conflict.

    I don’t think you had to watch events in Iraq unfold to anticipate the current situation. I’m pretty sure that most of the denizens of this blog saw it coming from the moment the last of US troops crossed over into Kuwait. The only way that anyone could not see it coming is if they ignored their lying eyes. They’d have to be intentionally ignoring it all. I’m sure it wouldn’t be unreasonable if someone claimed they saw it coming from January 2009.

    This administration spends a lot of time just wishing the world was the way they want it to be, rather than putting much effort into working to make the world they think it should be. The nomination of John Kerry as the Secretary of State proved that. We dodged a HUGE bullet in 2004.

    Now, I admire Petreaus for what he did in Iraq, I’m less impressed with what he’s done since. But he’s not some kind of oracle. I’d say he has a keen eye for the obvious in regards to Iraq.

    Four years from now I wonder if the Washington press will be stunned that I saw the same fate coming for Afghanistan back in 2014.

  • Defense budget cuts $$$ for Afghanistan, adds $$$ for Syrian rebels

    The Stars & Stripes reports that the White House has sent their “Overseas Contingency Operations” budget to Congress. It has cut spending for Afghanistan while adding a 1/2 million billion bucks to arm “appropriately vetted” Syrian rebels fighting against the government;

    [T]he budget, known as Overseas Contingency Operations, includes for the first time money to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels that are not only fighting President Bashar Assad’s government but also a wing of the same al-Qaida-inspired group challenging the U.S.-backed leadership in Iraq.

    The funds are part of a new $5-billion pot of money called the counter-terrorism partnerships fund, an initiative announced by President Barack Obama during a West Point speech on the future of U.S. counter-terrorism efforts in May.

    I’m just wondering how they plan on “vetting” these people they’re going to arm – because you know terrorists are always so truthful about their intentions. There were al Qaeda and Taliban who had infiltrated Afghan police and army units and were able to murder US personnel in the last few years. Karzai assured us that they were vetted before they were armed and trained and then went on their shooting sprees.

    The Washington Times reports;

    Officials said the administration would coordinate with Congress and regional players on the specific types of training and assistance the U.S. would provide the opposition. One potential option would be to base U.S. personnel in Jordan and conduct the training exercise there.

    Well, that makes me feel better – Congress is jam-packed with folks with military experience who should be given honorary general ranks and determine how our proxy wars should be fought. They have such a flawless record of military expertise.

  • Pulling a strategy from their nether regions

    Pulling a strategy from their nether regions

    The Washington Times reports that the president went on “Face the Nation” yesterday to explain to Americans about his strategy to deal with the expanding reach of the terrorist organization al Qaeda which he had declared “decimated” a few short years ago – you know, before the election.

    “Right now, the problem with ISIS is the fact that they are destabilizing a country that could spill over into some of our allies, like Jordan, and that they are engaged in wars in Syria where in that vacuum that’s been created,” the president continued. “This is going to be a global challenge and one that the United States is going to have to address, but we’re not going to be able to address it alone. And as I said yesterday, what we can’t do is think that we’re just going to play Whack-A-Mole and send U.S. troops occupying various countries, wherever these organizations pop up. We’re going to have to have a more focused, more targeted strategy.”

    Critics say the administration’s targeted strategy has proved to be a failure, and lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle say years of progress in Iraq — beginning with the 2003 war through the withdrawal of American forces in 2011 — may be lost.

    Well, actually, it doesn’t look as if they ever had a strategy to deal with the inevitable. It’s been six months since Fallujah fell to al Qaeda, so it doesn’t look like this administration looks past the end of it’s collective nose. Everything is a reaction to events. Even in domestic policy – look at their handling of the Obamacare fiasco on it’s launch date. Look how they handle the Veterans’ Affairs mess. They act more like a high school student government than the leader of the free world.

    The President says he’s not going to play “whack-a-mole” with al Qaeda, but that’s exactly what he doing in Iraq as well as Africa – a problem presents itself and he sends troops to pull his fat from the fire in social media criticism. And al Qaeda is laughing at us. The other day they photoshopped a picture of Michelle Obama holding a sign that read “#BRINGBACK OUR HUMVEE.”

    We have no strategy anywhere in the world, not even in our own country – look at the thousands of illegal alien children piling up along the border. I guess it’s harder to run a country than it is to run an election campaign.

  • Russia moves troops back to Ukraine frontier

    Last month, Russians moved their 40,000 troops from the Ukraine border, but according to NATO, some of those troops are moving back into action, says The Washington Times;

    Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke by telephone to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, voicing strong concern about the Ukrainian military onslaught. Putin said he expects Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to immediately launch his plan to end the violence, the Kremlin said.

    Putin and Poroshenko then discussed details of the peace plan in a phone call – their second conversation this week. Poroshenko’s office said he emphasized the need for introducing effective border controls and quickly releasing hostages.

    Russia has denied Ukrainian and Western allegations that it is fomenting the rebellion by sending troops and weapons into Ukraine.

    I guess it has nothing to do with the fact that we’re all looking at Iraq this week. But, don’t worry, Ukrainians, Joe Biden is on the case, according to another Washington Times article;

    He vowed that America, along with allied partners, would “impose further costs” on Russia if leaders there didn’t quit sending weapons to separatists across the border, NBC News reported.

    Mr. Biden said the United States had already asked Russia to quit sending arms to eastern Ukraine — and that Russia was standing in defiance.

    The White House released a short summary of the leaders’ talks, NBC News reported: “The vice president noted that the United States would work with our partners to impose further costs on Russia if it continued on its current course.”

    I’m sure the Russians are shaking in their boots given the number of empty threats that this administration has flung around over the last few years. So we have Kerry dealing with al Qaeda and Iran and Joe Biden dealing with the Ukraine. What could possibly go wrong?