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

Category: Congress sucks

  • Army wastes $14 million on new rifle program

    The Washington Times writes about the Army’s search for a new battle rifle that it didn’t want or need to replace the M4, with which the Army was perfectly happy because Tom Coburn made them.

    The tale of the replacement search for the M4 carbine rifle — the preferred weapon of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan since first issued in 2010 — illustrates how military leaders and taxpayers can get squeezed by the whims of congressional players.

    Under pressure from a powerful senator, the Army reluctantly launched the Individual Carbine program to find a replacement for the M4, even though top Army officials seemed pleased with the weapon’s performance despite a few cases of jamming in the field. Then, after a lengthy effort to test new alternatives, the Pentagon decided to stay with its current gun, leaving behind a hefty bill for browsing, not buying.

    “The Army wasted about $14 million on a competition to identify a source to supply new carbines it does not need,” the Pentagon’s chief watchdog, the inspector general, warned in a report this month.

    Well, that’s encouraging.

  • Democrats leave Benghazi hearings

    According to Townhall’s Katie Pavlich, all but two Democrats excused themselves from the Benghazi hearings before the testimony of the families of the fallen Americans from 9-11-2012;

    During the second portion of a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing about Benghazi Thursday on Capitol Hill, the majority of Democrats on the Committee left the room and refused to listen to the testimony of Patricia Smith and Charles Woods. Ms. Smith is the mother of Sean Smith, an information management officer killed in the 9/11 Benghazi attack. Charles Woods is the father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was also killed.

    The remaining Democrats were Ranking Member Elijah Cummings and Rep. Jackie Speier.

    Odetta sends us a link from Twitchy;

    Issa made this guarantee to family members:

    “The promise I make is that as long as I have this gavel, I will continue to work on this”

  • Obama’s Arkansas Fellow Traveler

    Last week I emailed my congressman, Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, letting him know that like almost two-thirds of Americans, I am opposed to supporting Obama’s foolish, face-saving gesture of an attack on Syria. I was taken aback when my congressman, an Army combat veteran of the Middle East wars, responded to me that he was prepared to vote in support of Barack’s Folly, a meaningless shot across the bow of another Middle East brigand who will be defiantly and ineffectually undeterred by an attack which he knows to be nothing more than political theater and political cover for an incredibly weak and inept American president.

    It is dismaying that Cotton is one of only two serving combat veteran congressmen from the Republican side of the aisle who have publicly announced, in the Washington Post, no less, their intention to support Barack’s Folly. Trying to make their case, they readily acknowledge that it is the continual blundering of Barack Obama that has put us into this morass, yet they claim that it is America’s reputation in the world that is at stake here, not that of our feckless leader. I have news for them: America’s reputation in the world took the big hit when she reelected a demonstrated incompetent. Serious dissing of Obama by foreign leaders has been on a steady uptick since November.

    The two congressmen further argue that an emboldened Iran will pose a serious nuclear threat to this country if we don’t show Assad we mean business. I might be moved by that argument if we were talking about a more determined demonstration of our disapproval. Rather than debating the wisdom and effectiveness of firing a shot across Assad’s bow, how about we discuss lobbing sufficient rounds directly into the bridge of the Syrian ship of state? More of us out here might get aboard, especially veterans who are now near universally opposed to the current proposal. No one more determinedly despises useless military gestures like Obama’s shot across the bow than those whose lives may be forfeit to such puerile political posturing.

    That a promising, young, up and coming congressman like Tom Cotton, who recently took the major political step up to declaring for the 2014 senate race against incumbent Democrat, Mark Pryor, can possibly be so tone deaf to the commonsense wisdom that pervades his electorate is disheartening. These folks here in Arkansas, the same as everywhere across the country, don’t see that there is any necessity to use American military forces to support either side in a fight where the likelihood is that both sides are our enemies. Cotton’s mistake is seriously compounded by the recent announcement of the incumbent Democrat, Pryor, usually an Obama water carrier, that he will not support an attack on Syria. Take time to read both accounts and see if you don’t agree that the politically astute Pryor makes the more convincing argument.

    Pryor is a cynically superior political chess player to Cotton, who appears to prefer checkers. Were Pryor not fearing an election challenge, you can bet he’d be toeing Harry Reid’s Democrat hardline on the senate vote next week. But Pryor is cleverly positioning himself as the man of the people, representing the interests of Arkansas, doing his best to define himself as a Democrat who doesn’t think in lockstep with Ultimate Leader and ruling liberal faction of the party.

    And on the checker-playing side, we have the Republican challenger, Tom Cotton, telling those he wishes to represent, “I don’t care if you’re opposed, I know better than you and I will vote to support Obama’s foolishness based on my superior, inside knowledge and not the wishes of my constituents.” Cotton’s argument is that he’s served in combat and that informs his superior position. Well I have a news flash for young Tom Cotton: There are many of us out here who also have been in combat who also have a few decades of life experience on him that informs our opinions, and we think he’s flat-out wrong. Congressman Cotton is wandering dangerously close to the McCain/Graham reservation where the operative reality is that which the senators feel to be politically beneficial, not necessarily what their constituents want. Has any aspirant to the senate ever begun a campaign with such a totally tin ear? It is readily apparent that Cotton has much to learn. Well, unless he’s already planning to be the next McCain or Graham.

    I have no specific information as to Barack Obama’s current approval ratings in Arkansas, but considering these 2012 numbers, I’m betting they’re probably somewhere in the twenties by now. What I will wager with some confidence is that no matter how low they are, come Election Day 2014, they’ll be higher than Tom Cotton’s if he insists on making himself Obama’s Arkansas fellow traveler.

    Crossposted at American Thinker

  • John McCain plays while the Republic burns

    PintoNag and Ex-PH2 send us links to an NBC news story about John McCain who was busted playing poker during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Syria yesterday. His response?

    McCain poker

    Yeah, f*cknut, it is a scandal. Paying attention during a Senate hearing (regardless of the length of the hearing) is the reason we allow you a salary and a fat pension. How about earning it. If I was supposed to be doing what I get paid for, but I was playing poker on my phone instead, I’d get fired. You, however, get to laugh about someone making a big deal about your piss-poor behavior.

    I agree with Matt Drudge, who could possibly vote for Republicans after their performance this week?

  • Most Americans oppose “punishing” Syria

    The Washington Post reports that in their latest polling, most Americans oppose any strike against Syria;

    Nearly six in 10 oppose missile strikes in light of the U.S. government’s determination that Syria used chemical weapons against its own people. Democrats and Republicans alike oppose strikes by double digit margins, and there is deep opposition among every political and demographic group in the survey. Political independents are among the most clearly opposed, with 66 percent saying they are against military action.

    I’m not saying that we shouldn’t strike Syria merely because the polling says we shouldn’t, there are myriad reasons and our foreign policy shouldn’t be conducted by opinion polls. But the poll is entirely the fault of this administration’s refusal to lead Americans to war. “Because f*** you…that’s why” is not explaining the reasons we should take military measures against Syria. I know that’s how this administration has shoved their policies down Americans’ throats, but its only because those linguine-spined Republicans don’t want to be called racists for opposing unAmerican policy that has nothing to do with race.

    Republicans will cave to the will of the President because it’s no skin off their nose if we end up in shooting war again. They can always blame the Democrats and hope none of the shit splashes back on them. Republicans have consistently voted with this President passing the most ridiculous shit because they don’t want to appear to be meanies.

    No one is asking what victory will look like after this “punishment” of the Syrian government or what our national security interests are like they would under the direction of their own party’s president.

    Of course, the Left is no better; Where are the hippie human shields flocking to Syria to protect their baby milk factories? Where are the congressmen on the roof of Assad’s palace declaring him more trustworthy than our own president?

    There is no leadership in Washington these days, there is only politicians punching tickets for reelection hoping that this whole Syria thing blows over in time for Americans to forget about it before the midterm elections.

  • Pelosi’s discussion with a 5-year-old

    I guess Pelosi has forgotten how one of Jimmy Carter’s worst faux pas was to announce to the world that he got foreign policy advice from his daughter, Amy, because the nitwit tells us about a conversation she had with her 5-year-old grandson in regards to Syria;

    Since I had volume issues with the video, here’s the transcript from Real Clear Politics;

    I’ll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he’s five years old. We’re not talking about war; we’re talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, ‘Well, what do you think?’ He said, ‘I think no war.’ I said, ‘Well, I generally agree with that but you know, they have killed hundreds of children, they’ve killed hundreds of children there. ‘ And he said, five years old, ‘Were these children in the United States?’ And I said, ‘No, but they’re children wherever they are.’

    So I don’t know what news he’s listening to or — but even a five year old child has to — you know, with the wisdom of our interest has affected our interests or it affects our interests because, again, it was outside of the circle of civilized behavior. It was humanity drew a line decades ago that I think if we ignore, we do so to the peril of many other people who can suffer.

    Apparently, her grandson has the ability to reason better than Mimi, he articulates his points better than her, too. I’m not sure what her point was in all of that, but it was important enough for her to walk back to the microphone to tell. I guess the lesson is that all of us who oppose a superficial military action in Syria with no real goal, no real value, no real interest are no smarter than her grandson. So, GFY, Mimi, you inarticulate moron.

  • Boehner supports Syria adventure

    Nice. Fox News is reporting that Speaker of the House John Boehner has announced his support for the President’s “punishment” or something of the Syrian government for their alleged use of chemical weapons on their alleged opponents in the alleged civil war in Syria. Allegedly.

    Boehner, emerging from a White House meeting with several other top-ranking lawmakers, said the chemical weapons attack last month “has to be responded to.”

    “I’m going to support the president’s call for action,” Boehner said.

    The report doesn’t say whether Boehner had tears in his eyes or not.

    At this point, we’re not hearing what this military action will accomplish (other than sending some nebulous message to some nebulous dictators – I guess because the message of Iraq wasn’t loud enough). I don’t know what our national security interest is in this, other than sending a nebulous message to nebulous dictators.

    The only reason that Boehner doesn’t oppose this punishment strategy is because he doesn’t want to be called a meany or a racist or something. Anyone with any sort common sense or even a cursory reading of von Clausewitz would recognize this as a bad idea.

    So what will “victory” look like? What’s the exit strategy?

  • White House knew three days before about chemical attack

    So looking at the Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013 from the White House in regards to the chemical attack in Syria, you’ll come across this paragraph under the heading “Preparation”;

    We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC – were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack. In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack.

    Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons.

    So, I wonder who they told, if they warned through their “sources” any rebels or civilians?

    Further;

    We assess with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus suburbs.

    So why is this the first time we’re hearing about this? Apparently, according to the White House the Assad regime has been dancing on the “red line” since the President drew the damn thing. But now suddenly, with the failures of every policy that this administration has advanced in the headlines, all of a sudden we a distraction with a shiny object like a limited military strike halfway around the world.

    In related news, the same woman who spent two years trying to defund our troops who were engaged with al Qaeda in Iraq as the Speaker of the House, suddenly sees a “national security” interest in a limited and narrow strike against Syria, according to the Washington Post;

    Pro-war Pelosi

    I guess they figure that a couple of videos of some ‘splodies on televion will make us forget that healthcare costs are rocketing into the stratosphere and we still don’t have any jobs. Time for the troops to yank the President’s fat from the fire once again.