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

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden

  • Inherent Resolve wounded

    Inherent Resolve wounded

    Inherent Resolve Casualties

    The Daily Beast points out that there are 5 wounded military personnel who were involved in Inherent Resolve, the war against ISIS.

    According to U.S. Central Command, which oversees military action in the region, the details of the wounded are not available, despite repeated requests for such basic information. The only specifics available are from a Washington Post story, which reported the first service member was wounded in March, just south of Baghdad, while in a guard tower. He was struck in the face by bullet fragments, according to the report, while coming under enemy fire.

    I’m not surprised. This administration hasn’t been able to tell the public the truth about anything, but, you know, if this was the McCain Administration or the Romney Administration, Code Pink and VoteVets would be tearing down the fence around the White House.

    The administration is a little bit careful what they call the mission in Iraq. From the Washington Post;

    Briefing reporters hours after the raid took place, Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said that “U.S. forces are not in a combat role in Iraq.” He said a team of elite U.S. soldiers had provided transport and support for the Iraqi Kurdish commandos. But the Americans were not intending to take part in the raid itself, he said. That changed when a firefight erupted and Wheeler jumped in to help. Later that day, Cook said that Wheeler’s death was the first combat casualty there since 2011.

    On Monday, asked about operations in Iraq, White House press secretary Josh Earnest declined to characterize the operations there as combat. He said the “train, advise and assist” mission differed from “the long-term, sustained ground combat operations” that took place after the 2003 invasion. Over 160,000 U.S. troops were stationed in Iraq at the peak of that war.

    The folks in Baghdad are little more blunt about their mission;

    …Wednesday, Col. Steve Warren, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, described the mission in blunt terms. “We’re in combat,” he said, speaking via video feed to reporters at the Pentagon. “That’s why we all carry guns. That’s why we all get combat patches when we leave here. That’s why we all receive imminent danger pay. So, of course it’s combat.”

    Maybe Media Benjamin and Jon Soltz could get a straight answer.

    Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.

  • Obama vetoes defense spending bill

    Obama vetoes defense spending bill

    You know what is more important than defense? Everything else, according to our President who has used his veto on the latest defense spending bill. His reason? Because it doesn’t give him the flexibility to hammer military retirees with higher out-of-pocket healthcare costs. The Congress tried to skirt spending caps by funding military operations with the “overseas contingency operations account”, but Obama would rather they just bust the spending caps so he can bust spending caps for domestic funds. From the Washington Post;

    “The president believes that the men and women who serve in our armed forces deserve adequate and responsible funding, not through a gimmick or not through a slush fund but one that would — could withstand scrutiny,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said.

    Nice crocodile tears, especially since the White House wants to jack up healthcare costs for folks who use Tricare – you know, folks who were promised healthcare in exchange for their service, and now that we’ve held up our end of the bargain, the Obama Administration wants to renege on their part.

    It was this administration that engineered the “sequestration” budget caps for defense, but they’re not willing to cap the EPA, the Commerce Department, the Education Department and all of the other government functions that bleed our GDP dry.

    The administration also opposes restrictions on how it deals with detainees at the Guantanamo detention facility in Cuba. Obama has said he wants to shut down the facility by the end of his presidency.

    […]

    The main stumbling block to completing the plan to close the prison is the question of where to house prisoners who are being tried or are being indefinitely detained.

    That’s silly, too. Holding up defense spending for the sake of a few international criminals. You really have to wonder about the priorities of this administration. I mean, if their intent is not to destroy the national security structure, it sure doesn’t appear that way.

    Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.

  • Biden was for the bin Laden raid before he was against it

    Biden was for the bin Laden raid before he was against it

    Biden gets fresh

    Joe “Bite Me” Biden is planning on jumping into the Democrat campaign for the nomination for President this week, so he had some things to clean up before that leap. Beginning with his reported opposition to the raid on the Osama bin Laden compound in 2011. He described his participation in the discussion to execute the raid in 2012;

    “Every single person in that room hedged their bet except Leon Panetta. Leon said, ‘Go,’” Biden said.

    “[Obama] got to me. He said, ‘Joe, what do you think?’ And I said, ‘You know, I didn’t know we had so many economists around the table.’ I said, ‘We owe the man a direct answer. Mr. President, my suggestion is, don’t go. We have to do two more things to see if he’s there,’” Biden said at the time.

    But now, because he wants to be your president, he was for the raid;

    “Everybody went around the room, and there were only two people who were definitive,” Biden said. Leon Panetta, the CIA director at the time, “said, ‘Go,’” while then-Defense Secretary Bob Gates “said, ‘Don’t go.’” Clinton, in this account, would have been among those on the fence.

    Biden said he raised a third option. “I said, ‘Well,’ I said, ‘I think we should make one more pass’” with an unmanned aerial vehicle to be sure the al-Qaida leader was at the target site. But that wasn’t his real preference, he told the forum. Moments after the meeting wrapped up, and he and Obama were alone, “I told him my opinion, that I thought he should go, but to follow his own instincts,” the vice president said. “I never, on a difficult issue, never say what I think finally until I go up in the Oval with him alone.”

    Biden has been on the wrong side of history on every single foreign policy issue since he began his political career in 1973. It’s difficult for me to believe that he wasn’t wrong on this decision, too.

  • McHugh warns of “thinly stretched” Army

    McHugh warns of “thinly stretched” Army

    John McHugh, the outgoing Secretary of the Army, warned the assemblage at the annual conference of the Association of the United States Army that the Army is “thinly stretched” and “on a ragged edge”. From TribLive;

    “BCT readiness levels right now are at 32 percent,” he said. “Our standard? Sixty to 70 percent. We are simply consuming that readiness as it’s produced — with more funding cuts looming before us. If we continue to strip resources from this Army, I have said repeatedly, at some point, someone is going to have to tell us to stop doing something. As I look at the world right now, I don’t know where that would be.”

    This is not the first time concerns have been raised about a decreasing budget, but the language suggests an increasing uneasiness.

    “And the problem we have been most troubled by is not the challenges we saw. … It’s the ones we didn’t see, we didn’t budget for, we didn’t plan for,” McHugh said.

    Yeah, well, who’s fault is that, McHugh? The White House recommended “sequestration” as a way to break a logjam on budget cuts, and they’ve been unwilling to do anything to correct the destructive power of using defense cuts to balance the budget. In fact, when Congress tried to fully fund the Defense Department this year, the White House threatened to veto. In previous years, the White House has even gone so far as to hold up DoD funding because Congress won’t hike healthcare costs for retirees.

    The White House says that they want to balance the budget, but they refuse to cut spending across the board. The only cuts that they’ll approve are cuts to Defense spending, you know, while we’re conducting all of these war thingies. Let’s see the White House and the Congress lead the way in this whole thing by cutting their own internal spending.

  • Obama talks leadership on 60 Minutes

    Obama talks leadership on 60 Minutes

    Last night, the President went on “60 Minutes” and discussed leadership, a subject with which he is wholly unfamiliar. The interviewer, Steve Kroft, confronts the President on the loss of US leadership in the Syrian civil war and how Putin seems to have taken the lead from us;

    Steve Kroft: He’s challenging your leadership, Mr. President. He’s challenging your leadership–

    President Barack Obama: Well Steve, I got to tell you, if you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we’ve got a different definition of leadership. My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change, an international accord that potentially we’ll get in Paris. My definition of leadership is mobilizing the entire world community to make sure that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon. And with respect to the Middle East, we’ve got a 60-country coalition that isn’t suddenly lining up around Russia’s strategy. To the contrary, they are arguing that, in fact, that strategy will not work.

    It’s as if there’s no reflection when President Obama looks in the mirror. Kroft tells the President that the perception in the Middle East that the US is acting out of weakness in Syria and, of course, the President blames the Republicans for that perception;

    Steve Kroft: Do you think the world’s a safer place?

    President Barack Obama: America is a safer place. I think that there are places, obviously, like Syria that are not safer than when I came into office. But, in terms of us protecting ourselves against terrorism, in terms of us making sure that we are strengthening our alliances, in terms of our reputation around the world, absolutely we’re stronger.

    In what regard are we stronger? Our policy in Syria has failed so badly that we’re no longer training Syrian rebels, we’ve had to restrict our air strikes so they don’t interfere with the Russian aircraft (who are doing a better job of beating ISIS into the ground, anyway).
    Tell Jason Rezaian how he’s safer now.

    The president ends his interview;

    Steve Kroft: Do you think if you ran again, could run again, and did run again, you would be elected?

    President Barack Obama: Yes.

    Steve Kroft: You do.

    President Barack Obama: I do.

    I agree with that, Americans are generally more enamored with the visage than the leadership he provides, because if Americans voted for leaders, this guy wouldn’t even be able to get a tour of the White House let alone live in it.

    Steve Kroft gets kudos for actually conducting an interview and getting the answers that Americans need, but it won’t have any impact on the discussion over Syria, because this president and his advisers are tone deaf to criticism. The President’s description of Putin, which could actually be a description of Obama’s own legacy, proves that he recognize his own failings.

  • Time for Our Next Dose of Economic Castor Oil

    The Federal government released economic data for September late last week.   So, happy days are here again, right? The US economy is going great guns, yes?

    Two words:  um, no.   As has been the case for the last 7 years, the economy . . . remains in the freaking toilet.

    There was one change, though.  The US labor participation rate did not remain at 62.6% last month.  Rather, it declined further:  to 62.4%. Once again, that’s the lowest the US labor participation rate has been since October 1977 – or early in the Carter Administration. It also marks the 18th consecutive month that the labor participation rate has been at Carter-esque sub-63% levels.

    This means only 62.4% of the US civilian labor force is actually working or actively looking for work. As noted above, it’s also a 38-year low – which now has been the case for four straight months (July, August, and September’s labor participation rate of 62.6% were all previously tied for the lowest since October 1977).

    As noted above, the US labor participation rate has also been at or below 63% for a full   two years   18 months now.  We never saw that during Carter’s catastrophic economic mismanagement.

    And on top of that, job creation was far less than expected.  Meanwhile, the US “official unemployment rate” remained at 5.1%.

    That last is not good news.  The “official unemployment rate” remaining steady at 5.1% is not, as some might claim, in and of itself an indicator of economic progress. By itself, the “official unemployment rate” is absolutely worthless as a measure of the economy’s actual performance; it tells you virtually nothing about the underlying economic reality.

    That’s because the “official unemployment rate” – U3 – is calculated using only those who are “actively looking for work” but who are unable to find employment.  “Actively looking for work” is defined as looking for work within the last 4 weeks.  However, if someone has gotten completely discouraged and has quit even trying to find work, they’re not counted at all for U3 purposes.  The labor participation rate, in contrast, accounts for them.

    So, when the “official unemployment rate” stays steady at the same time job creation is too weak to keep up with new entrants, that means more people left the workforce than entered.  With a growing population, that implies a rather sick economy.

    Those who quit looking for work still exist, of course.  And at some point in the future, they’ll almost certainly start looking for work again.

    U3 is such a p!ss-poor measure of actual economic performance that it’s even possible for the “official” unemployment rate to decline at the same time the economy is actually losing jobs.  I’ve provided a short, simplified example showing how this can occur in this past article.

    That’s essentially what’s been happening over the past several years.  The US labor participation rate has gone down by 3.3% since January 2009.  Since there are roughly 251 million individuals in the US civilian labor force today, that means a huge number of Americans who should be out looking for a job have become so discouraged they simply aren’t even bothering to try.  However, if and when conditions actually show some real improvement many of them will start looking again – and the unemployment rate will jump.  That is when you’ll know a recovery has really started.

    One last bit of “good news”:  remember those “excellent” job creation numbers for August and September we heard so much about?  That were higher than projected?  For some reason, they were revised downward last month – substantially. Due to either error or design, the original numbers apparently were not even close to being correct.  And it gets even “better”:  those revisions now seem to indicate a possible 3-month downward trend in monthly job creation by the economy.  If that’s really the case, that’s NOT good news.

    Recovery?  The correct response to anyone who talks about any “current economic recovery” is exactly the same as it’s been for the past 7 years: “What freaking economic recovery?  So far, there hasn’t been an economic recovery.

    All we’ve seen is economic stagnation, along with people becoming discouraged to the point of giving up on even looking.  And on top of that, wages have been generally declining in real terms the whole time – and in current-dollar terms last month as well, though only slightly.

    It’s been almost 6 years and 9 months, Mr. President.  Are we ever going to see any real economic progress under your     group of feckless fools and clueless tools     Administration?

    Eh, don’t bother to answer.  I think we already know the score.

  • The Oregon shooting thing

    The Oregon shooting thing

    Oregon shooter2

    This doofus took two handguns and a rifle to Umpqua Community College yesterday and if any of the news reports are to be believed, he killed about ten people and wounded a score. According to Yahoo News, he lined up his victims and asked them their religious preference and then shot all of the Christians. But, according to his online profile, he didn’t adhere to any religion;

    […]’s disdain for organized religion was evident in his social media posts and profiles. He also used the screen name “IronCross45” and had a dating profile at the site spiritualprofiles.com where he listed his interests as the “internet, killing zombies, movies, music, reading.”

    “Not Religious, Not Religious, but Spiritual,” he answered about himself on the site. As for a partner, he said “Pagan, Wiccan, Not Religious, but Spiritual” were qualities he desired.

    Oregon shooter

    He did express some admiration for […] who shot up the TV news crew in Virginia a few weeks ago. According to the LA Times a relative told them that this fellow had “joined the Army at one point”. I doubt that, given his young age, he was very successful in any military training. What you don’t hear very often, though is that there was an actual Army veteran, Chris Mintz, who was shot seven times when he charged this scrawny shit. Mintz is recovering in the hospital, I guess he had an angel on his shoulder.

    The President, of course, took to the airways to politicize the event, blaming all gun owners for the act of one person, before there were many details about the shooting.

    Obama reiterated his frustration at the failure of the Republican-controlled Congress to back new gun control measures, and threw down the gauntlet to lawmakers.

    “Prayers are not enough,” he said. “We can actually do something about it, but we’re going to have to change our laws.”

    “This is a political choice we make,” Obama said. “This is not something I can do myself. I have to have a Congress and state legislatures and governors who are willing to work with me on this.”

    “Something”. Be specific, Mr. President, if you want to have a discussion about gun control.

    In fact, Oregon just recently passed laws that Congress didn’t – requiring background checks for every purchase of firearms in the state. So the president is barking at the moon – Oregon had his laws in place and it didn’t prevent the shooting.

    The Oregon gunman had nothing in his past that would have prevented him from passing a background check, if authorities are to be believed at this point. So, I guess the only thing the President really wants now is banning firearms from all Americans. Since he wasn’t specific in his little speech, I can only assume that’s what he meant.

    By the way, Umpqua Community College, is not a “gun-free zone”. They allow concealed weapons in accordance with Oregon State Law – they are a “shall issue” state, but they have no reciprocity agreements with any other state. In other words, in order for an out-of-stater to carry concealed, you have to apply for a CCW license from the local sheriff. In that regard, they are a “may issue” state. Oregon doesn’t require a permit to buy a gun nor do they require gun registration – neither of which affect the commission of crimes with a firearm, anyway.

    I’m hearing some reports that are rumors at this point, that there were armed students who were ordered to “shelter in place” when they tried to respond to the gunfire. But, like I said, that’s a rumor and I don’t think anyone could order me to shelter while people were dying and I had the means to to stop the killing.

  • House to approve defense bill that Obama will veto

    House to approve defense bill that Obama will veto

    Fox News is reporting that Congress is set to approve their defense spending bill for next year, however, the White House is set to veto it, mostly because it busts spending caps while Congress will not do the same for non-defense spending. The bill funds the Defense Department through the Overseas Contingency Operations portion, which is not subject to spending caps

    The argument is whether Congress should break through spending caps when it comes to defense, but adhere to them for domestic agencies. Obama and his Democratic supporters say no. Republicans, citing global threats around the world, say yes.

    […]

    Defense Secretary Ash Carter told reporters on Wednesday that he wants Obama to veto it.

    “Attempts to evade the question of overall fiscal responsibility with the so-called OCO gimmick … is objectionable to me and to others in other agencies, and I think ought to be to the taxpayer, and certainly to the warfighter,” Carter told reporters.

    Yeah, well, our withdrawal from our leadership role in the world has created several crises throughout the world from Africa to Afghanistan. Our mishandling of the war against ISIS, al Qaeda, the Taliban has a cost in dollars as much as a cost in blood. Congress and the White House have been hacking away at the defense budget so much so that we can’t afford to have our Navy at sea to protect our interests. Do I need to mention throwing billions at a fighter that probably won’t be able to fire it’s round at the enemy for another 5 years? You know, in spite of the fact that we’re at war.

    They’ve raided the veterans’ healthcare surplus while jacking up our healthcare costs without blinking an eye. That 1.3% pay raise for the troops is below the projected inflation rate. Both the White house and the Congress has been shooting craps with the defense budget and gambling away our national security and this is the first attempt by either to correct that shortfall.

    You know what? No other department of the Government, or office of Congress, has sacrificed a penny to balance the budget except the Defense Department. And no other department of the government has handed the President as many successes as the Defense Department and this is how he thanks them – using them as a political tool to continue his legacy.