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

Category: Congress sucks

  • Syria response to be purely symbolic

    I wish someone in the White House would read von Clausewitz because obviously they don’t understand war at all. This is how one Obama Administration described to the LA Times the upcoming response to Syria’s supposed use of chemical weapons on their citizenry;

    One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

    “They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic,” he said.

    That’s the most juvenile statement I’ve read coming out of that administration, and it proves that their anticipated attack on the Syrian government is all about them and the perception they want the public to have of this administration rather than Assad.

    Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said after a briefing that the administration was “proceeding cautiously.” Obama is “considering a broad range of options that have been presented by our military leaders,” he said.

    Still, a growing number of lawmakers in both parties pressed the White House to seek authorization from Congress.

    Given the collection of boobs that the President has for military advisers, I’m sure the response will be muscular, but nothing will insulate them from being mocked. If I were in Congress, I’d shut up about authorization from Congress. I wouldn’t want my fingerprints on the coming train wreck – there’s nothing that Congress can do to make this thing look good for anyone including themselves.

  • How Congress will cure the military’s sexual crimes problem

    So we’ve been reading lately how Congress thinks they know more about preventing sexual harassment and rapes in the military. They want to remove commanders from the process, because Congress knows better than military. Yeah, Congressmen like former Congressman, Bob Filner currently the Democrat mayor of San Diego who has been buried in sexual harassment charges from 13 women so far. At least three of those women had connections to the military.

    Nurse Michelle Tyler on Tuesday charged that she approached Filner in June to ask for assistance dealing with the Veterans Affairs Department on behalf of her patient Katherine Ragazzino, an Iraq war veteran. Filner “made it very clear to me that his expectation was that his help for Katherine depended on my willingness to go to dinner with him, spend personal time with him and be seen in public with him,” Tyler said…

    […]

    Air Force veteran Eldonna Fernandez and Army veteran Gerri Tindley — also came forward with stories of unwanted advances from Filner. Both Fernandez and Tindley are survivors of sexual assault in the military and members of the National Women’s Veterans Association of America (NWVAA) in San Diego. The NWVAA’s president Tara Jones told CNN that she’s spoken to seven or eight women in the organization who had uncomfortable encounters with Filner.

    Fernandez and Tindley were both speaking at events to educate the public about military sexual assault when Filner began harassing them. But, even though he mistreats women, he still has his supporters, you know, because the overall agenda is more important than a few distraught women;

    Seven community leaders sent an open letter to the NAACP, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported, urging the organization to help Filner. Noting that Filner was a part of the 1960’s civil rights movement and has a record of fighting for social justice, they said he’s being “assailed by economic and political forces” in San Diego.

    “We do not condone sexual harassment,” they wrote. “We do recognize that Bob Filner’s fight is our fight for the greater good of humanity.”

    Yeah, so these are the people who want to scold the military and consider the military an inappropriate place to try sexual crimes.

    Thanks to BinhTuy66 for nudging me on this one.

  • Lindsey Graham; the new Jimmy Carter

    I remember in 1980 that our grand strategy for defeating the Soviet Union after their invasion of Afghanistan the year before, was to boycott the Moscow Olympics. Remember how well that worked? Yep, it hit the Soviets so hard that they were forced to withdraw from Afghanistan eight years later. It was a close won thing, but our perseverance in the face of adversity triumphed.

    Well, of course, I’m kidding. The boycott hurt the Soviet Union not a whit, in fact, they took a lot more medals than they would have if we’d showed up, and some young athletes had wasted years of preparations for a weak political point.

    So, according to the Washington Times, Lindsey Graham is proposing that we boycott the upcoming Olympics again over the Eddie Snowden discussion;

    “I would [consider a boycott]. I would just send the Russians the most unequivocal signal I could send them,” the South Carolina Republican said in an interview with The Hill newspaper. “It might help, because what they’re doing is outrageous. We certainly haven’t reset our relationship with Russia in a positive way. At the end of the day, if they grant this guy asylum, it’s a breach of the rule of law as we know it and is a slap in the face to the United States.”

    Just think of the potential outcome – eight years from now, Russia might turn over Snowden. Yay! Another win in the “never learn from history” column. Of course, drawing on Jimmy Carter’s legacy is what this administration does best.

  • You don’t need healthcare, but Schumer needs a missile defense

    Andy sends us a link from Bloomberg in which the Defense Department tells little Chuckie Schumer that he doesn’t need a missile defense system in New York;

    “There is no validated military requirement to deploy an East Coast missile-defense site,” Vice Admiral James Syring, head of the Missile Defense Agency, and his Army counterpart, Lieutenant General Richard Formica, wrote Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan.

    The U.S. has sites in Alaska and California. House lawmakers have pushed for an East Coast site, saying it’s needed to defend against a potential attack by Iran. Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, has urged that interceptors be located in his state.

    Schumer says that it’s to defend against Iran (who has apparently taught burros to swim with nukes on their backs), but we all know that he wants it in case those rowdy-ass Vermonters gather at the Catamount Inn again and decide to take Fort Ticonderoga back from New York. Or something.

    I remember a few years back, when that Republican guy was President, the Democrats all made fun of him because he wanted to put a missile defense system on the West Coast to protect against North Korea (which seems pretty wise these days given North Korea’s ability to actually launch missiles), but now, Schumer, one of those Democrats, wants a missile defense shield against an enemy who can’t successfully launch missiles without the judicious use of Photoshop.

    And, oh, did I mention that Schumer thinks there’s enough money in DoD to erect his missile shield against the Green Mountain Boys, but I don’t hear him making noise to protect veterans’ healthcare from the Pentagon’s chopping block.

  • Congressional busy bodies

    So, a couple of Congress persons want to change the way that the military deal with sexual assault according to the Associated Press. They want to remove sexual assaults from the jurisdiction of commanders and put it, oh, I don’t know, in the civilian courts, I guess.

    Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is a proponent of ambitious legislation that would remove commanders from the process of deciding whether serious crimes, including sexual misconduct cases, go to trial. That judgment would rest with seasoned trial counsels who have prosecutorial experience and hold the rank of colonel or above.

    The military has serious reservations about Gillibrand’s plan, concerned that stripping commanders of some authority would make it difficult for them to maintain good order and discipline. Not so, say some lawmakers, who argue that the military’s piecemeal approach clearly hasn’t been the answer.

    I don’t understand the reasoning, really I don’t. Sexual assault is a crime and it’s punishable under the UCMJ. Just going the news this morning, there was a sexual assault in a DC fire station. Some crackpot is assaulting women on a local running trail in DC, yet again (it happens every Spring), no one in Congress is suggesting that they can mandate to DC area courts how to prosecute the perpetrators of sexual assault. Why not? If they think that sexual assault is caused by the military justice system, then it must also be caused by the District of Columbia’s justice system. I mean we’re all people, and all equal under the law, so why is Congress so concerned about military sexual assault?

    I don’t know if there’s a problem in the military in regards to sexual assault, I just know that I never saw any, I never even heard rumors of it. Well, we did have one guy who used to pretend to fall and would grab the breasts of German girls nearby, but they put him in Leavenworth for 10 years. That’s the only case I knew about concerning someone in my unit in my two decades in the military. But, every damn day I see sexual assault on the local news out here in the civilized world.

    I guess this is just another way to undermine the order and discipline in the military by casting doubt on commanders ability to be fair as a legal authority.

  • Missing the Benghazi Point

    “Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a Ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country“

    -The Ranger Creed

    Watching the Republicans blunder about in the investigation of what happened in Benghazi kind of makes me want to scream.  Who altered the talking points, and why doesn’t really matter to me.  At best they are an after thought to what the investigation should be focusing on.  Namely, we left our ambassador, his staff and the GRS staff at the CIA annex Oscar Tango Foxtrot in the hopes it would all blow over.  We have documented accounts of at least three stand down orders for the GRS staff both in Benghazi and in Tripoli.  We also have the (then) acting chief of mission, Gregory Hicks’ testimony that the Special Forces team that was in Tripoli specifically for the purpose of protecting the missions there was given a stand down order from higher (presumably AFRICOM).  There is no evidence that any of the numerous tier 1 teams in Europe were even aware of what was happening in Libya, let alone given a WARNO.  Despite the assurances of the former SecDef Robert Gates, most experts in military matters agree that they could have gotten at least something in the AO in time to at least assist with the final attack on the CIA annex.

    The conclusion quietly reached by a lot of former soldiers, and a lot of SOCOM veterans as well as a lot of active operators is that one of two things happened; either there was a conscious choice not to rescue our people, in the hopes that it would “blow over,” or there was so much dithering that by the time anyone actually made a decision it was already too late.  Both are completely antithetical to the warrior mentality.  Regardless of what “considerations” need to be made, you rescue your people first.  Indeed, Woods and Doherty (as well as their unnamed teammates) openly defied orders, because that is just what warriors do.  The heroism that it took to load up and take on crows ranging anywhere from 60-100 armed with technicals that had anti-aircraft guns with a small SOF team can not be understated.  It rivals the heroism shown by MSG Gary Gordon and SFC Randy Shughart.

    Republicans should have asked Hillary Clinton why the hell she ordered Stevens to Benghazi in the first place.  They should have asked her, if she “takes full responsibility,” why the hell wasn’t she asking daily about the high threat posts around the world.  I can understand the SecState isn’t going to read every single memo, but you’d think that an area that was supposedly as important as Libya was to her, she’d have asked more than passing questions about what the hell was going on.  One would have thought Dame Clinton would have learned from her husband’s failings in Gothic Serpent, and maybe made sure that her missions were properly supported.  Why haven’t Republicans in both houses asked even the most fundamental questions of her?  Why did they allow her farewell tour to be just that?  It’s painfully clear that the GOP has a dearth of chutzpah, else they would have hammered this administration about pretty much everything it has done in the last 4 years.

    What I think is required is for veterans to remind the GOP the important part of Benghazi: someone screwed up royally, then compounded that screw up by denying any support to our foreign service personnel and CIA officers.  This administration doesn’t know how to treat warriors and is openly suspicious of the motivations of sheepdogs.  They embarrass themselves, and by extension the rest of America with their befuddled tepid responses.  That we don’t call them out on it, or remind them the seriousness of the consequences of their actions leaves some of the culpability in our laps as well.  We need to stop being the “crazy PTSD riddled vets” and start being cogent coherent advocates for a responsible posture in our foreign affairs.

    Most of all, though, I think we need to get someone with big brass ones that’s willing to call out all politicians.  Warriors are men and women of action.  The words we live by have power behind them because the words are inspired by deeds.  They are not the silken words of career politicians but the honest words of those who have seen the tiger, and know too much bullshitting will get you killed.  What we need is a veteran that isn’t afraid to look into the cameras and perhaps more importantly get in the faces of our political critters and say these immortal words: “RANGER THE FUCK UP!“

    Recognizing that I volunteered as a Ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession, I will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor, and high esprit de corps of my Ranger Regiment.
    Acknowledging the fact that a Ranger is a more elite soldier who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air, I accept the fact that as a Ranger my country expects me to move further, faster and fight harder than any other soldier.
    Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be, one-hundred-percent and then some.
    Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and well-trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow.
    Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a Ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.
    Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission though I be the lone survivor.
    Rangers Lead The Way!!!

  • What’s important here?

    In the Washington Times this morning, David Sherfinski writes that poor Chuckie Schumer is having a tough time shoving a watermelon through a garden hose;

    “I’m working very hard with both Democrats and Republicans, pro-NRA and anti-NRA people, to come up with a background check bill that will be acceptable to 60 senators and be very strong and get the job done,” the New York Democrat said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It’s very hard. We’re working hard, and I’m very hopeful that we can get this passed.”

    Meanwhile, most of the media is trying to scare us to death with an impending attack from North Korea – the same country that, a few months ago couldn’t get a missile over the Chine Sea is somehow going to nuke Austin, TX, not that it would be a terrible thing, anyway. Maybe they could take out Berkeley, CA while they’re at it.

    And, oh yeah, there’s immigration – John McCain and Chuckie Schumer got to watch how illegal aliens come into this country last week when, as they were wasting our money by looking at the border a woman scaled the fence crossing over into the US. I’m sure they were stunned, but it seems to me that someone could have shouted “Hey!” or “Stop!” But I guess that would be beneath them.

    So, while our military spending threatens to damage operations and readiness, the President’s kids fly at taxpayer expense from their vacation in the Bahamas to their vacation in Sun Valley – just like your kids.

    So while all of this is going on, who is working on the economy? Who is working on getting jobs back? I know, I know, that’s pretty much impossible for the federal government, but it’s what they promised before the election last year – and no one is holding anyone’s fee to the fire. I’m including Republicans in that criticism. John McCain is ready to throw the borders open – and witnesses first hand that they’re not closed anyway.

    The economy expanded at an anemic annual rate of less than 3% in the first quarter, folks have generally given up looking for work and everyone is perfectly fine with that, apparently. They’d rather worry about gun control or North Korea since we’ve all got food stamps and two years worth of unemployment benefits pouring into our bank accounts by direct deposit, so as not to waste time getting to Wal-Mart on our daily commute to buy cheap plastic Chinese-made crap.

  • A Modest Proposal

    Dunno if if I’ve proposed this here before, but an exchange with Laughing_Wolf on FB prompted me to bring it up again.

    My proposal is simply that OUR Congress Critters be paid exactly the same as our military. Live  in barracks… eat in mess halls, etc.

    Now it IS extremely unlikely that The Pampered Princes (and Princesses) on The Potomac would do this themselves.

    With that baseline how would YOU suggest we (the great unwashed) approach this?

    I’m thinking we might have some luck at the state level, but The Constitution has limited guidance here.

    I’m looking for a pragmatic approach while we still may have a say?