Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Panetta as SecDef?
While he certainly knows his way around Washington, what, exactly, in Panetta;s background makes him the best qualified person to be SecDef? His tenure at CIA has been lackluster at best.
Maybe the reference to onetime CIA official Ishmael Jones' remark contains a clue: (paraphrasing) because of his close personal connection to the President and lack of exposure to theCIA [Defense] bureaucracy. Or maybe his involvement in the fair employment practices issue is the key--he's going to have to preside over the demise of "Don't ask, don't tell."
At the rate we're going, he might have to preside over the demise of the entire United States military establishment.
(0) comments
Maybe the reference to onetime CIA official Ishmael Jones' remark contains a clue: (paraphrasing) because of his close personal connection to the President and lack of exposure to the
At the rate we're going, he might have to preside over the demise of the entire United States military establishment.
Labels: defense, military, politicians
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Obama In Libya
First, I hope the current campaign in Libya succeeds in getting Kadafi (spelled phonetically because the "preferred" spelling seems to change by the hour) to go away. Preferably at room temperature in a box, to an underground destination. I bow to no one in my dislike and disgust at the man and all he stands for. In retrospect I think we probably should have declared war against Libya as soon as we discovered it was behind the Lockerbie bombing of PanAm 103, which at the latest would be 24 February 2011, when resigned justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil revealed that Muamar Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing. Certainly that constituted an act of war by Kadafi under age-old principles of international law, and unlike al Qaeda, the Kadafi regime is a nation-state and precisely identifiable.
That said, Michael Barone's piece in the March 23 Washington Examiner puts into words in eloquent fashion the muddle of thoughts that have been bouncing around inside my own head for the last several days. Obama missed the optimum moment to act, then ignored Congress in favor of the UN, and acted without a plan, or at least without a plan that his administration has been willing or able to discuss coherently in public. As a result, I, along with Mr. Barone, am not at all confident that Kadafi will be ousted. If he survives, Obama (and unfortunately America) will suffer a significant loss of prestige and, more importantly, respect in the world.
The most unnerving thing to me about Obama's adventure is, although he ignored Congress he made sure to obtain UN approval for the action. That suggests to me that Obama considers himself more of a transnationalist than the President of the United States; that, together with his apparent willingness to put US military forces at the disposal of commanders from foreign countries, sets some very dangerous precedents in my opinion. It reinforces my oft-expressed opinion that Obama is either incompetent or the first anti-American president.
Another troublesome factor in Obama's lead-from-the-rear behavior is that we appear to be trying to do this on the cheap. This I attribute to the fact that, due to the profligate spending of Congress since 2007 (when the Democrat Party won its majority) and especially since the beginning of Obama's term, the country is broke. That is, we can't afford do do more. I am concerned that Obama and the rest of the Democrat Party, if not our whole political class, won't learn the lesson that excessive debt is a national security issue.
I repeat that I hope the effort to unseat Kadafi is successful, and I hope and believe that whatever takes his place won't be as bad, at least in the short term, but I am not at all confident that Obama and his merry band have the slightest idea of what they're doing.
(0) comments
That said, Michael Barone's piece in the March 23 Washington Examiner puts into words in eloquent fashion the muddle of thoughts that have been bouncing around inside my own head for the last several days. Obama missed the optimum moment to act, then ignored Congress in favor of the UN, and acted without a plan, or at least without a plan that his administration has been willing or able to discuss coherently in public. As a result, I, along with Mr. Barone, am not at all confident that Kadafi will be ousted. If he survives, Obama (and unfortunately America) will suffer a significant loss of prestige and, more importantly, respect in the world.
The most unnerving thing to me about Obama's adventure is, although he ignored Congress he made sure to obtain UN approval for the action. That suggests to me that Obama considers himself more of a transnationalist than the President of the United States; that, together with his apparent willingness to put US military forces at the disposal of commanders from foreign countries, sets some very dangerous precedents in my opinion. It reinforces my oft-expressed opinion that Obama is either incompetent or the first anti-American president.
Another troublesome factor in Obama's lead-from-the-rear behavior is that we appear to be trying to do this on the cheap. This I attribute to the fact that, due to the profligate spending of Congress since 2007 (when the Democrat Party won its majority) and especially since the beginning of Obama's term, the country is broke. That is, we can't afford do do more. I am concerned that Obama and the rest of the Democrat Party, if not our whole political class, won't learn the lesson that excessive debt is a national security issue.
I repeat that I hope the effort to unseat Kadafi is successful, and I hope and believe that whatever takes his place won't be as bad, at least in the short term, but I am not at all confident that Obama and his merry band have the slightest idea of what they're doing.
Labels: Congress, Debt, defense, Democrats, dictators, Kadafi, Libya, Obama, Terrorism, United Nations
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Question About Arizona's New Illegal Alien Law
Amidst all the brouhaha and accusations, I've seen nobody addressing the following question:
I will not buy any answer that's based on ICE being federal and the Arizona cops being state. It's pretty clear on the face of it that the federal government has defaulted on its Constitutional obligation* to defend the borders, so it would seem that Arizona has the right to defend itself against invasion by foreign nationals. (Thank you, Professor Reynolds.)
People have objected to the professor's theory on the grounds that the definition of "invasion" has been settled by Congress and the courts, and it doesn't include gradual and long-term illegal entry by foreigners. However, as a practical matter when citizens are being murdered and other felonies are being committed by drug gang members and just general lowlifes who are in the United States illegally, is the state of Arizona required to sit on its hands and wait for the feds to take action that might never happen?
What about the clause after the invasion clause. Suppose the Arizona Legislature "applied" to the federal government to come in and protect the state of Arizona against domestic violence being perpetrated by the illegals? Back in law school I was taught that the word "shall" connotes a mandatory action. Would the feds do nothing and thus twice violate the same Constitutional section?
Would the intentional failure by a President to defend the border constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor" that would be grounds for impeachment? (Ans.: Not against Obama with the present Congress. - Ed.)
If nothing is done by government the people will take matters into their own hands, and vigilantism would probably be a lot worse for Hispanics, whether here legally or illegally, than anything the Arizona cops (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) would do.
* Art. IV, Section 4 reads in its entirety:
(0) comments
How, exactly, will the procedures and tactics used by Arizona law enforcement officers under the new law to identify and arrest illegal aliens differ from those already used by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers?Seems to me the answer to that question is important. If the Arizona cops don't do anything differently in identifying and arresting illegal aliens, why is it OK for the ICE officers but not for the Arizona police officers?
I will not buy any answer that's based on ICE being federal and the Arizona cops being state. It's pretty clear on the face of it that the federal government has defaulted on its Constitutional obligation* to defend the borders, so it would seem that Arizona has the right to defend itself against invasion by foreign nationals. (Thank you, Professor Reynolds.)
People have objected to the professor's theory on the grounds that the definition of "invasion" has been settled by Congress and the courts, and it doesn't include gradual and long-term illegal entry by foreigners. However, as a practical matter when citizens are being murdered and other felonies are being committed by drug gang members and just general lowlifes who are in the United States illegally, is the state of Arizona required to sit on its hands and wait for the feds to take action that might never happen?
What about the clause after the invasion clause. Suppose the Arizona Legislature "applied" to the federal government to come in and protect the state of Arizona against domestic violence being perpetrated by the illegals? Back in law school I was taught that the word "shall" connotes a mandatory action. Would the feds do nothing and thus twice violate the same Constitutional section?
Would the intentional failure by a President to defend the border constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor" that would be grounds for impeachment? (Ans.: Not against Obama with the present Congress. - Ed.)
If nothing is done by government the people will take matters into their own hands, and vigilantism would probably be a lot worse for Hispanics, whether here legally or illegally, than anything the Arizona cops (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) would do.
* Art. IV, Section 4 reads in its entirety:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. (Emphasis added.)
Labels: Arizona, Constitution, defense, Illegal Aliens, Mexico
Saturday, September 26, 2009
President Pantywaist?
Once again, more valuable insight into what Mr. Obama is doing to the United States is available from abroad than from our domestic "news" organizations, whose credibility is now approximately on the same level as whale poop in the view of many if not most Americans.
Here's Gerald Warner, writing in the UK's Telegraph:
When words like "President Pantywaist" appear in the public discourse taking place in the staunchest friend that the US has in the world, it can't be good.
(0) comments
Here's Gerald Warner, writing in the UK's Telegraph:
Thanks to President Pantywaist’s supine policies, the former satellite states can see that they are fast returning to their former status. The American umbrella cannot be relied upon on a rainy day. They have been here before. Poles remember how a leftist US president sold them out to Russia at Tehran and Yalta. The former Czechoslovakia was betrayed twice: in 1938 and 1945.I wish I'd said that.
If the word is out that America is in retreat, it will soon find it has no friends. The satellites will pragmatically accept their restored subordination, without openly acknowledging it, and co-operate with their dangerous neighbour, ushering in a new generation of Finlandisation.
###
Barack Obama is selling out America and, by extension, the entire West. This is a catastrophe for America and the wider world.
When words like "President Pantywaist" appear in the public discourse taking place in the staunchest friend that the US has in the world, it can't be good.
Labels: defense, Great Britain, media bias, Obama
Monday, May 25, 2009
Memorial Day
I believe I'm sensing a trend in the national consciousness that I regard as a good thing: people are paying more attention to the reason we have Memorial Day. Maybe it's because I'm older and don't hang with the party crowd anymore. Maybe not. In any event, I think I'm hearing and seeing more people paying respect and giving honor to those who have fought and died so that our country can be as great as it is.
Anyone who's read this blog for a long time knows that my dad was a career soldier. He was a medic with bad eyesight, and as such was never sent into combat, although in Korea and especially in Vietnam he was in harm's way. I thank him for his service, as I thank my two sons for theirs. While growing up I got a first-hand look at who our military people are. The draft was in effect then so there was probably more of a cross-section, but I am convinced that today's military are pretty much the same as the ones I knew, except more motivated, which one would expect from an all-volunteer force. What I saw, and what I see now, are (for by far the most part) good American kids from all walks of life, who take pride in themselves and in their country, and who are prepared to do what it takes to complete the mission successfully. Not much different, really, from those who don't enlist, but what differences there are derive from a strong love of country and a recognition that liberty must be defended--it doesn't come without cost. That recognition is what all those we honor today knew in their hearts, and they had the courage and the mettle to act on that belief.
God bless them all, and may God help us to understand our debt to them, which we cannot repay.
(0) comments
Anyone who's read this blog for a long time knows that my dad was a career soldier. He was a medic with bad eyesight, and as such was never sent into combat, although in Korea and especially in Vietnam he was in harm's way. I thank him for his service, as I thank my two sons for theirs. While growing up I got a first-hand look at who our military people are. The draft was in effect then so there was probably more of a cross-section, but I am convinced that today's military are pretty much the same as the ones I knew, except more motivated, which one would expect from an all-volunteer force. What I saw, and what I see now, are (for by far the most part) good American kids from all walks of life, who take pride in themselves and in their country, and who are prepared to do what it takes to complete the mission successfully. Not much different, really, from those who don't enlist, but what differences there are derive from a strong love of country and a recognition that liberty must be defended--it doesn't come without cost. That recognition is what all those we honor today knew in their hearts, and they had the courage and the mettle to act on that belief.
God bless them all, and may God help us to understand our debt to them, which we cannot repay.
Labels: defense, Memorial Day, military, veterans
Saturday, April 11, 2009
It Was A Bow
I'm moved to comment on this story because it seemingly won't go away.
He bowed. No matter how you spin it, Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, and it wasn't even in Saudi Arabia that he did it. The real issue is, what does it signify?
From what I've read, I understand that it is a long-time tradition, if not policy, that American presidents do not bow to any monarch, going back to the founding of the Nation. Our revolution, after all, was about replacing a monarchy with a republican form of government, and in theory no monarch has any greater status than any other individual, hence no bowing.
I also understand that some presidents have broken that tradition on rare occasions.
So what's with Obama's bow? People say the man is brilliant, and presumably is smart enough to hire a good chief of protocol to tell him how to act in situations like the one in point. So, either the Big O (apologies to Oscar Robertson, former NBA star) didn't hire a chief of protocol, or hired an inept one, or hired a good one and didn't listen to him/her. In any case, ignorance is no excuse, particularly for such a brilliant man. I am therefore persuaded that Obama knew exactly what he was doing, and did it with a purpose. After all, he's brilliant.
Why, then, would Obama do such a thing, especially if, being brilliant, he must have known that it would give rise to a kerfuffle of, dare I say it, regal proportions? I think he must have been sending a message to the world that in his administration, America is abdicating the superpower position that it has earned over the last century or so by expending its blood and treasure in defense of Europe, first against the Nazis and then against the Soviets, and in defense of Asia, and the Pacific nations, first against the Japanese, then those same nations including Japan against the Soviets and the PRC and its proxies.
Apparently that message is being picked up, not only by the usual suspects (e.g., Iran, North Korea) but also by the piss-ant pirates of Somalia and others. I'm not the only one who's noticed, either. See this scathing piece in the UK's Telegraph.
The MSM is still reporting that Obama personally has good positive poll numbers, although the numbers relating to his policies has been steadily declining since inauguration. The American public is willing to cut the guy a lot of slack, but if his policies result in what I think they will, they'll be hanging him in effigy and, well, marching with pitchforks and torches. I wouldn't be surprised to see the first "impeach Obama" bumper stickers by Thanksgiving.
UPDATE 20090411:1252PDT-- It looks like Beldar sees things a bit differently from me, although he gets to pretty much the same place.
(0) comments
He bowed. No matter how you spin it, Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, and it wasn't even in Saudi Arabia that he did it. The real issue is, what does it signify?
From what I've read, I understand that it is a long-time tradition, if not policy, that American presidents do not bow to any monarch, going back to the founding of the Nation. Our revolution, after all, was about replacing a monarchy with a republican form of government, and in theory no monarch has any greater status than any other individual, hence no bowing.
I also understand that some presidents have broken that tradition on rare occasions.
So what's with Obama's bow? People say the man is brilliant, and presumably is smart enough to hire a good chief of protocol to tell him how to act in situations like the one in point. So, either the Big O (apologies to Oscar Robertson, former NBA star) didn't hire a chief of protocol, or hired an inept one, or hired a good one and didn't listen to him/her. In any case, ignorance is no excuse, particularly for such a brilliant man. I am therefore persuaded that Obama knew exactly what he was doing, and did it with a purpose. After all, he's brilliant.
Why, then, would Obama do such a thing, especially if, being brilliant, he must have known that it would give rise to a kerfuffle of, dare I say it, regal proportions? I think he must have been sending a message to the world that in his administration, America is abdicating the superpower position that it has earned over the last century or so by expending its blood and treasure in defense of Europe, first against the Nazis and then against the Soviets, and in defense of Asia, and the Pacific nations, first against the Japanese, then those same nations including Japan against the Soviets and the PRC and its proxies.
Apparently that message is being picked up, not only by the usual suspects (e.g., Iran, North Korea) but also by the piss-ant pirates of Somalia and others. I'm not the only one who's noticed, either. See this scathing piece in the UK's Telegraph.
The MSM is still reporting that Obama personally has good positive poll numbers, although the numbers relating to his policies has been steadily declining since inauguration. The American public is willing to cut the guy a lot of slack, but if his policies result in what I think they will, they'll be hanging him in effigy and, well, marching with pitchforks and torches. I wouldn't be surprised to see the first "impeach Obama" bumper stickers by Thanksgiving.
UPDATE 20090411:1252PDT-- It looks like Beldar sees things a bit differently from me, although he gets to pretty much the same place.
Labels: defense, diplomacy, government, Obama, politics
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Obama's Military Policy
I believe that Obama's plan would be a huge mistake, for lots of reasons. With N. Korea, China, Iran and others developing ICBM systems and space-based weapons, it would be folly to scrap our missile defense capability. It would be equally dumb to ostrich on "weaponizing space" when our adversaries are scrambling to do exactly that. Finally, when you gut your conventional forces, you are less able to respond militarily to threats that may arise. When you are finally forced to respond, you use what you have. Notwithstanding what he says in the video, Obama won't be scrapping our nuclear arsenal anytime soon (if he does he should be impeached) and if that's all we have left, that's what he'll use, or he'll fold. Either way, a disaster for the US and the world. Not only that, but how is Obama going to reconcile his stated strategy of going after bin Laden if he shrinks the military from what it is today?
The best way to guarantee an attack is for your enemy to believe you're defenseless. That's what bin Laden thought we were on 9/11. We currently have the best military in the world, but if we declare to the world that we won't use it, we are as defenseless as if we had an army of toy soldiers, a navy of model boats and an air force of paper planes.
As President, Obama would take an oath to defend the United States against all enemies. If he actually follows through on these promises, he's a change we can't believe in and can't live with.
Labels: defense, Election, military, Obama, politics
