Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden

  • Military Leaks to Hollywood

    Tman sends us a link to an article in the LA Times about Peter King investigating the possibility that the Obama Administration leaked classified details of the bin Laden raid to director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal in preparation for their latest film endeavor.

    King’s interest was aroused in August when New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that “the movie-makers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration.”

    Boal, Dowd wrote, “got welcomed to the upper echelons of the White House and the Pentagon and showed up recently — to the surprise of some military officers — at a CIA ceremony celebrating the hero Seals.”

    Oh, I’m sure everything is fine. Hollywood is really good at protecting information that could harm our national security or get some of our operators killed. Hollywood has always had our national interests at the center of it’s concerns.

    Given Bigelow’s inability to stick to the facts, we can probably expect footage of Obama stepping out of the crashed helicopter and delivering the coup d’etat without any Secret Service presence and the screen decorated with “Obama 2012” logo. I can’t wait to stay away from it.

  • Good Idea Fairy runs rampant in Pentagon

    The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration has an “austerity plan” to provide for our national defense. Yeah, I’d like to see their “austerity plan” for the Environmental Protection Agency.

    The document will call for a greater shift toward Asia in military planning and a move away from big, expensive wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, which have dominated U.S. operations for most of the past decade, said a senior military official.

    I hope our enemies all take this into account before they begin their respective rampages and cooperate with our new plans. How in the name of all that is holy do you “move away from big, expensive wars”? Are we just going to ignore any threats that are too big or too expensive?

    From Deebow over at our major league team;

    Wars are not something you can fight with a coupon or try to duck out on the cheap and my bet is that we could afford a poop ton more troops and equipment if we weren’t making loans/campaign contributions to outfits like Solyndra and putting our debt at 100.3 percent of our GDP, along with all of the other Marxist crap that the OinC has decided is good for America.

    It’s as if that problem with training and sufficient equipment that we had at the beginning of this last war just suddenly appeared after January 20, 2001. Like I said, where’s the austerity plan for the EPA and the Commerce Department? Are they being asked to slash billions out of their operating budgets? Especially since their policies are killing jobs and DoD’s policies are only killing our enemies. Well, almost;

    On Wednesday, Boeing announced that it will shutter a factory in Wichita that produces military airplanes for refueling, an early casualty of what is expected to be a wave of closings among defense contractors.

    On differences;

    The strategy is different from past Pentagon reviews in that it establishes clear priorities for the military, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the plan had not been publicly released.

    Yeah, “clear priorities” from muddled brains. There were clear priorities before Bush, too – a military that handed out MREs to the world’s hungry. As deebow points out, there is an endless list of nations that wish us ill, some of whom already consider themselves at war with us, but I guess since they don’t fit our “clear priorities”, I’m sure they’ll cooperate and not give us any trouble. Or we can depend on the Europeans to intervene where we’re unable to summon the testicular fortitude like in Libya.

    Just because the Washington Post tells us this time will be different doesn’t make it so. Like I mentioned the other day, Leftists think there wasn’t a moment of human history written before the moment of their births.

    So who wants to be the first to die for a lie?

  • Iran threatens US if carrier group moves to Gulf

    In response to the news that the US may move the USS John C Stennis to the Persian Gulf to enforce sanctions that are beginning to take their toll on the Iranian economy, and observe Iran’s war games, the head of Iran’s Army, Ataollah Salehi said, according to Reuters;

    “Iran will not repeat its warning … the enemy’s carrier has been moved to the Sea of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf,” army chief Salehi said.

    “I advise, recommend and warn them over the return of this carrier to the Persian Gulf because we are not in the habit of warning more than once.”

    Oh, so we’re “the enemy” are we? Doesn’t that sort of mean that we’re at war? This administration and Ron Paul don’t think so.

    Thanks to ROS for the link.

  • The looming Obama/Paul military massacre (Part 1)

    An unholy alliance has been formed in Washington D.C.

    Libertarian Republicans and liberal Democrats are moving to both destroy the military and cut off at the knees the families who have given the most this past decade. The first person to sound the alram in the mass media was former President George W. Bush’s Ambassador to the UN John Bolton in July of 2011:

    Every indication is that the debt-ceiling negotiations are leaving the defense budget in grave jeopardy. By exposing critical defense programs to disproportionate cuts as part of the “trigger mechanism,” there is a clear risk that key defense programs will be hollowed out.

    While the trigger mechanism comes into play only if the Congressional negotiators fail to reach agreement on the second phase of spending cuts, it verges on catastrophe to take such a national security risk.

    Defense has already taken hugely disproportionate cuts under President Obama, and there is simply no basis for expanding those cuts further. Republican negotiators must hold the line, since the Obama Administration plainly will not.

    He spoke out again making it clear that if (when) the so called Super-Committee failed the DoD and its membership would be left devastated.

    In the deal’s second stage, the yet-to-be-named Congressional Joint Commission will have wide discretion on what to agree on, but if no agreement or only partial agreement is reached, the deal’s sequestration mechanism will be triggered. Broadly speaking, if that happens, defense spending will bear fifty percent of the total cuts, with non-defense spending bearing the remaining fifty percent, up to the amount necessary to raise the debt ceiling by the minimum $2.4 trillion required by the deal. This approach risks grave damage to our national security.
    There is no strategic rationale whatsoever for cuts of this magnitude. There is, in fact, every strategic rationale to the contrary. While the appropriations process may still be able to decide which specific programs will be cut, this is no consolation. Cuts of this size are effectively indiscriminate.

    It’s at this point in which I know I don’t actually need to remind this readership of this blog where the true burden of our tax dollars rest. I’d hope we all know where the rest of this is heading…

    I’ll sound the alarm now for the 6.1 million of you whose jobs are tied into defense. Your time is coming in what is referred to by insiders as the coming train wreck. Entire US companies are looking to get out of the business of defending the United States and taking their people elsewhere.
    (more…)

  • President votes “present” on detainee detention

    Yesterday, the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act “despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.” He had previously threatened to veto the bill in it’s entirety because of that provision, but so much for the courage of his convictions. He instead issued a “signing statement” – a practice he criticized President Bush for during the 2008 campaign.

    [The Obama Administration] will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

    In other words, he’ll pick and choose which laws he will enforce – that kind of runs contrary to the whole purpose of the Executive Office, the duties of which include executing the laws passed by the Legislative branch. That’s why they call it the Executive branch – it’s supposed to execute not legislate.

    Since the White House has failed to publish that signing statement on it’s website in a timely manner, I’m forced to rely on media accounts of the signing statement.

  • Obama targets veterans’ votes

    The Associated Press reports that the Obama campaign thinks it has a lock on veterans’ votes because he ended the the war in Iraq and has a generally good record on national security. While I’ll concede that he has presided over the military during a successful period, it’s only because he’s interfered with the policies established by the Bush Administration less than we expected.

    The Associated Press gives him credit for the new GI Bill, which was signed before he came into office by his predecessor. It was the Obama Administration which screwed the pooch and paid veterans months after they’d promised because they only had a year or so to figure the whole thing out, while troops and their families suffered financially.

    And remember when he wanted to force service-disabled veterans to buy insurance? Do you really think he’ll cave as easily next time when there’s no election to worry about?

    Oh, yeah, and he’s got the Defense Department doing his dirty work jacking up TriCare premiums, so he can go around proclaiming that he won’t balance the budget on the backs of veterans.

    Did I mention that Obama and his hitmen are slashing $800 billion out of the defense budget – so much so that the American Legion commander says it imperils our national security? That this President has never given veterans a cost of living increase but our healthcare costs are rising along with fuel that we use to get to veterans’ treatment facilities?

    So what has really done? He failed to successfully negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement which forced us to withdraw from Iraq while it descends into violence. Disregarding the advice from his commanders, he half-assed surged in Afghanistan hoping that drones would make up for the number of troops…and then lost drone bases in Pakistan.

    He won’t admit that service members in Fort Hood and Arkansas were victims of Islamic terrorists, pretty much refusing to recognize that war against terrorists has followed the troops home.

    He’s made a lot of pretty speeches to veterans that few of us believed. And, bin Laden and al Awlaki were killed under his command, so that’s something.

  • Preempting the truth with worried mockery

    A certain self-consciousness reveals itself in this recent Ted Rall cartoon. The immediate set up for the image is three veterans sitting around a military or patriotic (likely referred to in his circles as jingoistic) bar. The scene evokes the stock conceptualization of a VFW or American Legion Post. The middle patron is missing his arm. All are wearing belligerent, seemingly ignorant t-shirts. The man on the left makes mention of the betrayal of the political class in the war, an allusion to the common theme in the German Army after the Treaty of Versailles. The second compares his treatment to that of the maligned generation of Vietnam vets. The last declares his intention to run for Congress. Perhaps, for the left, the most frightening inclination of all.

    It’s the laughable paradigm in which Rall and his left-wing ilk regard us, as easily manipulated and reactionary fools, sacrificed on the alter of forces beyond our reckoning. This sort of pretentious elitism is witnessed time and again by those most divorced from the union of civic duty and personal sacrifice in the pursuit of the actual common good.

    This silly dialogue reveals something else: fear of exposure.

    Illustrating the cause for people like Rall’s concern is Fred and Kim Kagan’s excellent piece on the deteriorating situation in Iraq. It was precise in identifying the cause of the breakdown of peace and security for the people in Iraq since the end of the successful Bush/McCain “surge”. I’ll quote briefly:

    With administration officials celebrating the “successful” withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, thanking antiwar groups for making that withdrawal possible, and proffering outrageous claims about Iraq’s “stability,” “sovereignty,” and the “demilitarization” of American foreign policy even as Iraq collapses, it is hard to stay focused on America’s interests and security requirements. Especially in an election year, the temptation will only grow to argue about who lost Iraq, whether it was doomed from the outset, whether the current disaster “proves” either that the success of the surge was inherently ephemeral or that the withdrawal of U.S. troops caused the collapse.

    The withdrawal of all American military forces has greatly reduced America’s leverage in Iraq. U.S. military forces were a buffer to prevent political and ethno-sectarian friction from becoming violent by guaranteeing Maliki against a Sunni coup d’état and guaranteeing the Sunnis against a Shiite campaign of militarized repression. The withdrawal of that buffer precipitated this crisis and removed much of our leverage.

    Like it or not, the timing of the moves against Hashimi et al. upon Maliki’s return from Washington has created a perception in Iraq that these actions were authorized by Washington.

    After hundreds of billions of dollars and almost 4,500 American service member’s lives the Obama Administration scuttled the negotiations required to keep American forces in Iraq. After eight years of blood, sweat and treasure the end was decided by Democratic political pollsters in campaign season.

    Explosions are ripping through Baghdad at a rate and ferocity not seen since 2007. The Shiite Prime Minister is purging his government of the Sunni members needed to retain a pluralistic state, literally the day after American withdrawal. The Kurds edge closer to open secession and the Iranian Quds Force establish safe houses across the country.

    Peter Wehner in Commentary quite succinctly said:

    What is happening in Iraq is sickening, in part because the gains came at such a high cost and in part because what is happening there was so avoidable. Obama was handed a war that was largely won. What America had given to Iraq is what the Arab scholar Fouad Ajami called “the foreigner’s gift.” But Iraq being Iraq, maintaining an American troop presence there, separate from engaging in combat operations, was necessary if Iraq was ever to become whole again. President Obama has undone much of what had been achieved there, almost in the blink of an eye. And when the history of his administration is written, it increasingly looks as if he will be fairly judged to have been the man who lost Iraq.

    In an administration full of failures, this one may well rank among the highest. The human cost to Iraq and the strategic damage to America may be unimaginable. And so unnecessary.

    And so, full circle, we come back to the paranoid fear of intellectual midgets like Rall. Knowing the devastating judgment an unbiased history will lay upon the Obama Administration for so callous an abandonment of the Iraqis at at the cost of so many American’s lives he attempts to preempt this searing truth with petty mockery and stumbling historical analogy. Keep your heads on the swivel and call out this caustic and hateful manipulation when you see it.

  • DoJ negates SC voter ID law

    Big surprise, the Department of Justice’s, Civil Rights Division rejected South Carolina’s new law that would require voters to identify themselves at the polls according to the Washington Post;

    Opponents of the laws say they would discriminate against minorities and others, such as low-income voters, because some don’t have the necessary photo identification and lack the means to easily obtain ID cards.

    Conservatives and other supporters of the tighter laws say they are needed to combat voter fraud.

    Under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, several of the states that enacted voter-identification laws are required to receive federal “pre-clearance” to ensure that the changes don’t affect minority political power.

    Yeah, the 1965 law was written to protect minorities from Democrats. Now we need laws to protect the majority from Democrats and their illegal attempts to inflict the votes of ineligible voters on the rest of us. It stands to reason that a Democrat administration would block the attempt to have fair elections.

    Low income voters don’t have a problem getting the necessary identification to collect their monthly food stamps or drivers’ licenses or Medicaid cards. Every place I’ve lived, the local government forced me to get a government ID whether I drove or not, so how am I to believe that there are people without ID cards. How are they cashing checks, opening bank accounts, getting on airplanes or buses if they don’t have any ID?

    ADDED: By the way, notice that the DoJ announced their decision on Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend hoping we’ll all forget about it by Tuesday?