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

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden

  • Karzai votes ‘present’ on SOFA

    ROS sends us a link to Associated Press which reports that Afghan President Kazai, in his first statement after meeting President Obama says that he’ll hand off responsibility on the decision to include immunity from Afghan courts (Status of Forces Agreement, SOFA) for US soldiers in their fight against terrorists in that country – you know those terrorists who are murdering and maiming school children and shoppers in the local markets.

    This was also the first time Karzai has floated the idea that Afghans should hold a “loya jirga” – a national assembly of elders – to make the decision on U.S. troop immunity.

    The United States has said that it needs to maintain sole legal jurisdiction over its forces in Afghanistan as part of the agreement for forces that will stay after 2014. In Iraq, it was the Iraqi government’s refusal to grant such jurisdiction that caused U.S. troops to completely quit that country.

    “We want our national sovereignty and the Americans want the safety of their soldiers,” Karzai said in Kabul. “They don’t want their soldiers to be under the laws of another country.”

    Karzai appeared to be trying to strike a conciliatory note, in sharp contrast to the harsh rhetoric and demands ahead of his U.S. trip.

    Karzai must’ve caught something in the White House during his recent visit that influenced his sudden inability to make inflammatory comments about our troops and their intentions. So, just off the top of my head, and with no evidence to support my supposition, I’m guessing that there will be no troops in Afghanistan at the end of next year because Karzai is passing off the decision to another bunch of imbeciles who cant wait to toss our troops into their shithole prisons – in fact, they’ll probably start releasing real terrorists from prison to make room for US troops.

    The administration will rightly decide to pull out the troops when they can’t get a reasonable SOFA and then celebrate because they’ve “ended the war” like they did in Iraq.

  • Giving up the ghost in Afghanistan

    From our buddy, Kate, at The Victory Girls, that guy we reelected as President two months ago has decided that our efforts in Afghanistan have “fallen short of the ideal”. Dan Fromkin at Huffington Post wonders, along with the rest of us “How Many Dead and Wounded Soldiers Ago Did Obama Give Up on Afghanistan?” Fred Kaplan at Salon reports;

    When one reporter asked if our accomplishments in this war had been worth all the bloodshed, Obama recalled the reason we intervened in Afghanistan in the first place—the 3,000 Americans killed on Sept. 11, 2001, as a result of an attack that al-Qaida had planned on Afghan soil. Our “central goal” ever since, he said, has been to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida while also bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. Mission accomplished.

    But this answer was misleading. It sidestepped the fact that, at the end of 2009, Obama sent an additional 33,000 troops to Afghanistan, a surge of nearly 50 percent above the 68,000 already there—and that he did so not to go after bin Laden and al-Qaida (a task that could have been handled with far fewer forces) but rather to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy, at least in the cities, particularly in the southern districts.

    The CIA warned president Obama in 2009 that if he didn’t give the generals the 60,000 troops they asked for, the strategy in Afghanistan would fail. He gave them 33,000 and *viola*, the Biden robot ninja zombie strategy failed. Froomkin’s question is valid – did the Obama Administration let US troops die in Afghanistan just to portray himself as a “wartime” President for the election? You know, like he portrayed himself as a pro-gun President until after the election?

    During the speech from The Victory Girls’ quote, Obama goes both ways on the success of operations in Afghanistan;

    “Did we achieve our central goal? And have we been able, I think, to shape a strong relationship with a responsible Afghan government that is willing to cooperate with us to make sure that it is not a launching pad for future attacks against the United States? We have achieved that goal. We are in the process of achieving that goal.

    Emphasis is mine.

    So have we achieved the goal or are we in the process of achieving the goal? Which is it?

    I’ve been warning since 2009 that the war in Afghanistan was just another aspect of the Obama/Biden campaign. I asked who wanted to be the last to die for Obama/Biden 2012.

    So, I’m wondering why the troops are still there if the administration has given up the mission there? Why wait until 2014 – the election is over with. Jerk ’em all out now. Well, unless he’s going to fart around until after the midterm elections and secure some more seats in Congress with the blood of our troops.

  • Panetta & Dempsey: no US troops in Syria

    The Washington Times‘ Kristina Wong reports that Secretary of Defense leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey told reporters that the US isn’t planning to put boots on the ground in Syria, especially if chemical weapons are used against the rebels there;

    “We’re not working on options that involve boots on the ground,” Mr. Panetta said at a Pentagon briefing. “I think you always have to keep the possibility that, if there is a peaceful transition and international organizations get involved, that they might ask for assistance in that situation. But in a hostile situation, we’re not planning for that.”

    He said the greater challenge is deciding what steps the international community can take to ensure those weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

    “That is a discussion that we are having, not only with the Israelis but with other countries in the region, to try to look at, you know, what steps need to be taken in order to make sure that these sites are secured and that they don’t wind up in the wrong hands,” Mr. Panetta said.

    Yeah, it sounds like a bunch of jibber-jabber to me, too. I’m so sure that whoever ends up in charge of Syria is going to allow Israeli troops into the country. The quotes from Dempsey are just as unintelligible. It doesn’t explain why they said they’d need 75,000 troops in Syria – certainly there’s been planning, if they arrived at that number back in November.

  • That Hagel thing

    Of course, despite fierce opposition, the president has nominated Chuck Hagel for the Secretary of Defense during the President’s second term. it almost makes sense that Obama would nominate Hagel, because Hagel shares Obama’s world view. Hagel voted for the war in Iraq, then backed off and called it a “war for oil” like a stupid hippie. He joined Harry Reid in condemning the Iraq surge as “getting bogged down” like Vietnam. As if hippies were writing his talking points.

    The Democrats need a Republican to be the Secretary of Defense – Leon Panetta was the first Democrat in that position since 1997 – and I guess they thought Hagel would be a good choice because he was a squad leader in Vietnam and he was also a friend of that partisan veterans organization VoteVets. Jimbo at Blackfive writes about Dana Milbank at the Washington Post who thinks all of that trumps any actual position on the issues that affect the troops. Because we’re all chickenhawks if we oppose Hagel.

    I read that the Democrats think that Hagel will apply the lessons we learned in the war in Iraq to the upcoming confrontation with Iran. Yeah, well, the lesson that we should have learned is that countries in that region don’t respond to economic pressure – they only understand strength. And that’s how the surge worked in Iraq. The insurgents in Iraq thought that the Democrat win in the Congress was going to result in an immediate withdrawal of forces from Iraq, instead we injected thousands more into the war and they were disheartened and decided they’d be better off joining us than fighting us.

    But Hagel nor Obama see the lesson that way. they’re convinced that their sanctions will work, even though there’s not one example of that outcome in recent years. Remember that Qaddafi gave up his weapons of mass destruction when he thought he was next in line for an invasion after we invaded Hussein’s Iraq? All they understand in that region of the world is strength, and the only thing they respond to is force. Neither Chuck Hagle nor President Obama recognize that simple truth.

    Of course, that’s probably good news for the troops because I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t be very happy fighting a war that no one would have any intention to win. We’ve had enough of those the last few years.

  • McChrystal and guns

    McChrystal guns

    Yup, if you say things like assault weapons (whatever those are today) shouldn’t be in schools, I’ll agree with you every time. That’s why none of the guns I own have ever been in a school – because the law tells me that I can’t take guns (of any type) into schools. But, then, I’m a law abiding citizen.

    This load from McChrystal is exactly that…a load. I’ve stayed quiet since the discussion about his book began, because I really did respect the job he did in the Middle East, but honestly, I think he’s a tool. Obviously, he didn’t like the job that the Obama Administration was doing in Afghanistan, but he kept his mouth shut after he was effectively fired for what others told a reporter. Soldiers in Afghanistan died while he kept his mouth shut. McCrystal had the horsepower and the capital to spend while soldiers were being shot while the administration disarmed in the face of the enemy.

    And now, he wants to jump in behind the Obama Administration on gun control? Seriously? He let the Obama Administration disarm our troops on the battlefield, and now he wants to disarm the folks at home?

    In this link, sent to us by FrostyCWO, McChrystal says;

    “I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that,” McChrystal explained. “That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”

    Yeah, I spent a career carrying an M16, too. I like the feeling of it, it feels comfortable. Like I said, I don’t take mine around schools – I take it to the range, like I did during my career. While I agree that there’s no need, per se, there’s also no need for a Porsche or a Ferrari on the street. But there they are.

    Yeah, this is more of McChrystal’s blind obedience to Obama, regardless of the consequences.

  • Paul Eaton on crack

    Kerry Hagel

    Chief Tango sent us a link to this article. Yeah, retired General Paul Eaton wrote that. Eaton has also appeared in VoteVets campaign ads, he’s a frequent guest on Bill Maher’s show, wherever that plays these days, he was an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, then he campaigned for Barack Obama, and now, SURPRISE!, he thinks that Kerry and Hagel are a fricken Dream Team.

    Kerry and Hagel share qualities and experiences sure to resonate with those who execute U.S. national security and foreign policy – on the battlefield and in the increasingly dangerous world of diplomacy.

    Both men demonstrated great bravery in war and moral courage throughout their lives. Hagel, as an infantry sergeant and squad leader in Vietnam, was twice wounded, saved by his squad mate brother and then returned the favor. Kerry, not far away, operated riverine craft in an equally dangerous environment and sustained several wounds.

    After such experiences, they understand the implications of deciding to use military force like few others in our civilian leadership. They know at a gut level that the decision to put our soldiers in harm’s way can traumatize those who have answered the call of duty, and affect their families, like few of life’s endeavors.

    I guess, he wants to forget that Hagel called the surge in Iraq the “most dangerous blunder since Vietnam”. Who can forget how Kerry supports the troops by testifying in front of a Senate Committee in 1971 (while Eaton’s father was MIA in Vietnam and Eaton, himself, was at West Point, by the way) that they were war criminals and don’t forget Kerry’s “botched joke”; “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

    Yeah, the troops were real appreciative of that joke;

    Halp us Jon Cary

    Eaton continues;

    Kerry, having voted to approve the use of force in Iraq with, among others, Senator Hillary Clinton, declared his intent to ensure all foreign policy tools remained on the table.

    Both men later voted against the surge in Iraq in the face of substantial push-back from their colleagues.

    So they waffle and bend with the political winds. That’s what the troops really appreciate, someone who will send them to war and then go wobbly when the political heat is turned up. Remember that Kerry as a citizen tried to undermine the war effort in Vietnam and peace negotiations by traveling to Paris and made offers to the North Vietnamese delegation that he couldn’t deliver on.

    So yeah, that’s a real dream team you have there, General. Maybe he thinks getting Kim Il-sung for Energy Secretary would be a real coup for us. Or Joe Biden would make a good Education Secretary.

  • Obama’s signing statement on the defense bill

    Aside from the fact that the President said when he took office he wouldn’t issue signing statements with his signature to bills, he did after he signed the defense bill last night. And he complained that Congress wouldn’t let him and Panetta jack up health costs on veterans – you know Congress helped Obama keep his pledge to not balance the budget on the backs of veterans. But here’s the part of the statement;

    Additionally, the Department has endeavored to constrain manpower costs by recommending prudent cost sharing reforms in its health care programs. By failing to allow some of these cost savings measures, the Congress may force reductions in the overall size of our military forces.

    So basically, he’s pitting veterans against current members of the military services, and complaining because Congress won’t let him fund the Defense Department out of the pockets of veterans. Remember how they took the $700 million surplus out of our Tricare fund to spend on their defense programs? That was just a preview. That’s not “constraining manpower costs” that’s theft of services. Telling us on the one hand that he’s not going to balance the budget on our backs, raising the costs of our benefits to us, and raiding the surplus that we built. And, oh, yeah, telling us how much of a better system is at the VA. Even though we have to pull teeth to get into the VA system.

  • Obama won’t be “putting off” gun control

    In an interview with the crowd at “Meet the Press” who don’t see a problem with breaking DC gun laws, President Obama will guarantee base Democrat voters that he won’t forsake their agenda, according to the Washington Post;

    Obama, who recently established a task force led by Vice President Biden to offer recommendations for how to best curb gun violence, also pushed back against an idea the National Rifle Association put forth following the mass shooting earlier this month at a school in Newtown, Conn. As gun control advocates called for tighter restrictions, the NRA urged that armed guards be placed in schools to deter and defend against future acts of violence.

    “I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem,” Obama said.

    Obama reiterated his support for a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that gun control advocates in Congress have said they will be pushing for.

    So much for the “national conversation” we’re supposed to be having. A “national conversation” actually means for those of us who support the constitutional guarantees, that we should sit down and STFU while they preach to us.

    I’m not exactly comfortable with the idea that Joe Biden will be dictating our policy to us – you know the guy whose robot-ninja-zombies policy in Afghanistan has done such a bang up job. The guy who thought that we should partition Iraq. The guy who opposed the first Gulf War. The guy who has been absolutely wrong on every single policy issue since he went to the Senate. Now he’s going to interpret the Constitution for us.

    So all of you gun owners who didn’t bother to go to the polls last month, I just want to say “thank you”. I’m not sure that Romney would have been much different, but at least he could be bullied. Those of you who think that this can stopped in the House, look at the great job they’ve been doing the last few years holding the line against Obama’s policies. The most we can expect, I suppose, is the spectacle of John Boehner weeping on national TV.