The next time the president goes to war, Congress should be consulted and vote on whether it agrees, according to a bipartisan study group chaired by former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher.
In a report released Tuesday, the panel says the current law governing the nation's war powers has failed to promote cooperation between the executive and legislative branches. It says the 1973 resolution should be repealed and replaced with new legislation that would require the president to inform Congress of any plans to engage in 'significant armed conflict,' or non-covert operations lasting longer than a week. In turn, Congress would act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving the action.
Hah. Right.
Baker, who served as secretary of state in the first Bush administration and co-chaired the 2006 Iraq Study Group, said the proposal isn't intended to resolve constitutional disputes between the White House and Congress on who should decide whether the nation fights. 'What we aim to do with this statute is to create a process that will encourage the two branches to cooperate and consult in a way that is both practical and true to the spirit of the Constitution,' Baker said in a statement. And I'm sure it will work as well as history indicates.
Optimist.
A new joint House and Senate committee would be established to review the president's justification for war. To do so, the committee would be granted access to highly classified information.
The panel has briefed the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, as well as congressional leadership. Spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama commends the panel 'for advocating that the president consult Congress more closely on issues of critical national importance like the use of military force.' McCain did not provide comment. But I'll bet he rolled his eyes.
Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force President Bush to end the war. While Congress had authorized combat in Iraq, Democrats said the resolution approved only the invasion and not a five-year counterinsurgency.
After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. While they lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's right as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedence.
The one surefire way for Congress to have ended the war was to cut off money for combat operations -- a step most Democrats weren't willing to take because they feared doing so would have hurt troops in harms' way, or at least be perceived by voters that way. Yeah, I guess 'at least be perceived' is technically accurate.
Which makes all their other posturing about this rather gutless, since they lack the courage of their so-called convictions.
The plan identified by Baker and Christopher, who served as secretary of State under President Clinton, would not necessarily resolve such issues in the future. But it would create a consultative process between the White House and Congress that currently does not exist. Also, calling on Congress to respond would exert significant political pressure on a president if he ignored lawmakers' wishes.
The consultative process does exist: no President will go to war without talking to Congress. Bush talked with them extensively before we went into Iraq. He got a resolution. He's been talking with them extensively since then, though he and the Dhimmis don't agree.
The panel studied the issue for more than a year and consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state. The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia sponsored the study. So much for being able to carry a big stick if this stoopid idea sticks, which I don't think it will. The founding fathers set things up the way they did for a reason. Sometimes it takes a king to get things done.
Its a shame the GOP has to do what the press will not: question him on his obvious ERROR on the Surge. Were the surge failing the press would hang that on McCain like an albatross.
Georgetown, D.C.: This is going to sound pretty strange — I realize this — however it's really been bothering me and I need some advice. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, has been frequenting my gym and though it's pretty cool seeing him around there's a downside. The man never — NEVER! — returns weights to the rack when finished with his sets. How does one tell such an important political figure to rerack his weights?
The way you tell children: Oops, you forgot to return your weights to the rack. I'm sure you don't want to leave the impression you're too arrogant to observe the basic courtesies of the gym.
#3
The way you tell children: Oops, you forgot to return your weights to the rack. I'm sure you don't want to leave the impression you're too arrogant to observe the basic courtesies of the gym.
NO,NO,NO, You do NOT say things a child will NOT comprehend, like don't want to leave the impression you're too arrogant to observe the basic courtesies of the gym.
You tell a child "Pick them up before you leave"
then you stand by the exit. (Children will NOT behave unless forced) and when they try to leave , you say "You MUST put those weights back" If they do, fine
But this is a critical point, they MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO REFUSE,
Once a child finds he can Say NO, and get away with it, a thug is born
If they say anything such as you Can't Make Me
you must immediately make them,
If they run to "Mommy"explain to mommy the weightd MUST be put away, and if their child won't do it, THE "MOMMY' must put them away, (That usualy does it)
In my particular case my son was told to pick up his clothes on the floor of his room(YOU CAN"T MAKE ME, YCMM) (He was seven) I said You really think I can't make you?
Answer NO (sticks lower lip out) MOMMY WILL PROTECT ME FROM YOU, My answer, We'll see about that I then took one wrist in each hand, stood behind him, and used his hands to pick up clothes off the floor and put them in the dresser where they should be, He's screaming like a stuck pig, making threats he can't possibly make happen, and in a short while the room had all clothes pickec up off the floor, then I let his hands go.
he complained bitterly to his mom, who said Hmmm, I had'nt thought of that
and tried to call the police saying I was "Molesting" him (Got laughed off the phone) and from then on the trouble out of him was cut in half.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/08/2008 19:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
How long ago was that, Redneck Jim?
I've lived in states where that would now get you a visit from social services and the threat of losing your son permanently.
#5
I can't imagine that happening. Either I did something right or my kids were exceptional. I expected certain minimal things of them, and even more of myself (single Dad). I was consistent (kids hate uncertainty) and fair among all three. All three made my life and theirs' better by doing their chores and more. I have no great insights beyond that, but my kids have done pretty well. Returning the weights to the rack would've been mentioned...once. By the way, my kids DO love me :-) and I never had to spank them, past an age (2+?) that they can remember. Not a professional, but the consistency thing is highly recommended, and if you're married? Don't let one parent be the "good" parent, and one the "bad"
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/08/2008 19:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Funny, but he strikes me as more of a Thighmaster guy.
#3
I find the 'emergency chute deployment' story a bit thin; the tailcone on these aircraft are ejected and the slide then comes from a compartment in the floor; i have deplaned from these aircraft many times and have never seen anything above me that even cloely resembels control cables or plumbing. Don't forget this series of aircraft was the subject of an AD after the Alaska flight 261 crash that found a failure of the horizontal stabilizer actuator (jackscrew) due to improper lubrication. Several others were found in similiar shape and required immediate replacement; others were deemed satisfactory.
personal opinion: this aircraft was in the early stages of AK 261 part II and the pilot saved it.
(but the consiracy theory is more funner!)
#7
No you wouldn't. Senior executives' time is always under heavy demand. US CEOs average 75 hours a week on the job - I can't imagine the president works much less. Except for Reagan, for good or ill.
#8
I started counting, and Mr. Wife easily spends 75 hours a week dong his job -- not counting business dinners -- and he's only middle management at a Fortune 500 company. His brother-in--law, who has a mid-size local HVAC company, regularly works 'til midnight.
#9
Besides, Air Force One doubles as a command center. The President can stay in touch with whoever he needs to at all times.
Plus the press gets to sit in the back of the plane.
For a candidate, I suppose the press is the major reason they need an MD-80.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
07/08/2008 19:59 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Note to Senator Obama: Other things you should never, ever accept from either of the Clintons, or their friends, if you value your hide:
1) Their cook or any food prepared by anyone even vaguely associated with them.
2) Any security personnel, armed or unarmed.
3) Physician referrals.
4) Limousines to drive down steep mountain roads.
5) Powder cocaine.
6) Packages that smell like fuel or that have gift clocks in them.
7) Free lessons for sky or scuba diving, bungee jumping, bronco busting, alligator wrestling, skiing or spelunking.
8) T-Shirts featuring the Target Corporation or Red Cross logos.
9) Contracts that require your signature in blood.
10) "Symbiotic health worms" you need to swallow.
#11
Moose, add to your list: never offer her your VP slot. Remember that if you do, the only thing standing between Hillary and her lifelong destiny ambition is your last heartbeat.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
07/08/2008 20:27 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Hillary's reaction per her closest advisors... DANGIT! DANGIT! DANGIT!
Posted by: a yankee ||
07/08/2008 21:21 Comments ||
Top||
#13
'Symbiotic health worms' you need to swallow. I think Opophis already has that.
Congress should pass legislation to require the president to consult lawmakers before going to war, according to a bipartisan study group chaired by former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher.
In a report released Tuesday, the panel says the current law governing the nation's war powers has failed to promote cooperation between the executive and legislative branch. It says the 1973 resolution should be repealed and replaced with new legislation that would require the president to inform Congress of any plans to engage in "significant armed conflict," such as operations lasting longer than a week.
In turn, Congress would act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving the action.
Baker, who served as in the first Bush administration and co-chaired the 2006 Iraq Study Group, said the proposal isn't intended to resolve constitutional disputes between the White House and Congress on who should decide whether the nation fights.
"What we aim to do with this statute is to create a process that will encourage the two branches to cooperate and consult in a way that is both practical and true to the spirit of the Constitution," he said in a statement.
A new joint House and Senate committee would be established to review the president's justification for war. To do so, the committee would be granted access to highly classified information.
Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force President Bush to end the war. While Congress had authorized combat in Iraq, Democrats said the resolution approved only the invasion and not a five-year counterinsurgency.
After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. While they lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's right as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedence.
The one surefire way for Congress to have ended the war was to cut off money for combat operations -- a step most Democrats weren't willing to make because they feared doing so would have hurt troops in harms' way, or at least be perceived by voters that way.
The plan identified by Baker and Christopher, who served as secretary of State under President Clinton, would not necessarily resolve such issues in the future. But it would create a consultative process between the White House and Congress that currently does not exist. Also, calling on Congress to respond would exert significant political pressure on a president if he ignored lawmakers' wishes.
The panel studied the issue for more than a year and consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of State.
The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia sponsored the study.
#3
For the record, what is commonly called the War Powers Resolution is actually an act of Congress passed over the veto of Nixon.
It requires consultation with Congress before military action and every President has done this. It also requires an authorization before 60 days has passed since military force was used.
The real problem here is that Congress actually wants to complain about the use, the success, the rules, the barriers to, the requirements for the use of military force but does not want to ever take responsibility for actually authorizing it.
Legislation can be crafted to make it appear to correct the problems with the 1973 act (which has never been tested in the Supreme Court and which may be unconstitutional), but it won't fix the "don't blame me, I'm just here to complain" attitude of legislators
#4
The real problem here is that Congress actually wants to complain about the use, the success, the rules, the barriers to, the requirements for the use of military force but does not want to ever take responsibility for actually authorizing it.
Congress will acknowledge that they authorized the war. Under false pretenses, if the war is unpopular. What they want, and what the founders specifically and explicitly denied them is a voice in conducting war. They had seen war conducted this way during the Rev olution and they were not about to allow the mistake to be repeated. So Congress gets to start wars and end them, but the President gets to fight them. And congress will be unhappy until the constitution is overturned. No president will alloiw this to happen.
#6
The 'problem' is the curse of December 7th. The founding fathers never in their imagination thought we'd be tagged with maintaining and operating a major military force across the world. The Constitution wasn't written with those objectives in mind, but the historical memories of Charles I, Cromwell, the the Revolution in mind. They sought to control the Executive in engaging in war making power not just by legislative acts like declarations of war, but also through the maintenance of a small standing army. They understood that the President shouldn't have to convene to Congress every time some conflict developed on the frontier or the country was subjected to an unanticipated invasion with Congress not in session and unable to immediately respond. The management tool therefore was the funding of the Army [who's funding is explicitly restricted in terms of years in the Constitution]. In the major conflicts which would happen since then 1812, Mexican-American War, ACW, Spanish American War and WWI would see the major demobilization of any standing army accumulated during the conflict. It was WWII and the situation with which America was presented that altered the dynamics. With it came a large standing military force committed worldwide facing contingencies that could at short notice demand the intervention of American interests. The President since has had a tool that the founders tried to avoid. The world just didn't let their posterity have that option. The one legitimate Constitutional tool Congress has to limit the Executive is to cut the size and funding of the force available to commit to any action. Congress understands that is a nuke handgrenade, taking out the thrower and target alike. No one has the balls to come up with a Constitutional amendment to alter the relationship. So every one bitches and passes meaningless legislation that does nothing but grant the Judiciary even more power in a process that the founders would be shocked at.
The real choice is to fundamentally choose in this world to be part of the total process and therefore keep plodding along with the tools we have, or go isolationist and simply try to ride out the storm that will follow. To be the master of one's fate or the victim of others actions.
#8
MHW,
Not only was the War Powers Act passed over a Nixon veto, but it's been generally assumed by both sides that if the WPA ever went to the Supreme Court, it would die a quick and spectacular death. IMHO the problem doesn't go back to WWII, because the postwar military really was cut drastically back. It sadly dates to the Korean War and Harry Truman, who (of all people) should have asked for a declaration of war against North Korea.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
07/08/2008 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"When i hear the words Christopher and Baker I release the safety catch on my gun."
#10
IMHO the problem doesn't go back to WWII, because the postwar military really was cut drastically back. It sadly dates to the Korean War and Harry Truman, who (of all people) should have asked for a declaration of war against North Korea.
I understand your approach, but the US, while downsizing the physical force, substituted its monopoly on atomic weapons as a counter force and maintained commitments and token forces world wide as a 'show of force'. The mindset of being 'engaged' created by WWII hadn't disappeared. For a couple of years it was thought possible to be committed on the cheap. The first 'peacetime' draft was initiated by Truman in 1948 in response to the Soviet blockade of Berlin. In 1949 the Soviets explode their first nuke made possible by the communist espionage efforts and the American monopoly ended. North Korea invades the south in 1950.
#11
The problem is nobody holds the Congress accountable for voting for something and then later backtracking. If you did not have enough time to read something you should not sign it. That is the job of Congress for crying out loud. Cowards.
And the other problem is the declaration of war should have very large font letters stating DECLARATION OF WAR on the top so there is no doubt. Don't fuzz it up. Then attach spending and things directly to that so when the war is declared over any bills attached also end. It's not rocket science.
#12
I say that the American People declare war on Congress.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/08/2008 21:53 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The founding fathers never in their imagination thought we'd be tagged with maintaining and operating a major military force across the world.
I couldn't disagree more. They clearly thought they were creating a republic that would grow to be equal or superior to any European power. One of their greatest concerns was whether a nation of such broad expanse could survive as a republic. But that it would have great expanse they never doubted. That they could not see today's world in many details is as clear as that we cannot imagine the details of the world of 250 years from now. But I daresay they would be less surprised by the way things have turned out thus far than we would be by the world 250 years hence.
What they would be surprised at was that the United States would stop growing.
Blaming the standing army of the cold war on the Japanese is ludicrous. It was due to HW Bush alone.
Had Stalin not threatened Europe we would have demilitarized as we did after prior wars. But Stalin was foolish enough to make his intentions clear before we had forgotten the lesson of Munich.
As a result we rebuilt a standing army for 50 years of warm and cold war. It was at the end of this war that we did not remotely attempt to demilitarize. Blame HW Bush for the continued militarization of the US. Had he disbanded NATO and brought home the troops we would have been much better off.
#4
I fear that Republicans are still taking too much of the rap for Congress' low ratings. Public at large seems blithely unaware that Congress changed hands two years ago.
#6
I'll say it again. The way to get Americans to the polls is to make them mad. "Sick" Harry and "No Drill" Nancy are doing a great job at that. Their only salvation is a brain dead RNC.
#10
Iblis, I get the same feeling - people are not blaming the Dems as they should be.
There is some sort of mental illness abounding in the nation that is blinding people to the obvious.
"Congress Sucks"
Well, you must be pretty angry at the Democrats then...
"No, those republicans running congress suck".
/sigh.
The real shame is that the porkbarrel ear-marking a-holes that ran the GOP under Hastert were THAT indistinguishable from the Dems to where people didn't notice the change!
The GOP lost because they tried to buy the public with pork and earmarks like Democrats instead of cutting spending and keeping government small, even if it meant not bringing home boondoggles to their districts.
And the leadership STILL does not "get it" that we are fed up with them and their unprincipled ways.
#11
People aren't getting it because they don't want to. Getting it means coming to grips with hard and complex realities. Our welfare state / not my fault populace doesn't want to work that hard.
#12
Consider Congress's (and I'm talking both parties here) reaction to this news:
A. Gee, we must be doing something wrong,
or
B. It's something else's fault - I know! It's high gas prices! Not our fault!
The truth is it's because they're an embarassment to both constituencies. Regardless of party or program, the bulk of them are incompetent and thieves... and there's nothing more embarassing than an incompetent thief.
And they spoke among themselves, saying, "It is a crock of shit, and it stinketh."
And the Workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pail of dung, and none can abide by the odor thereof".
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength."
And the Directors spoke among themselves, Saying to one another, "It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong."
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents, saying unto them, "It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor of the company with very powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan and saw that it was good.
And the Plan became Policy.
And this is how shit happens...
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/08/2008 22:04 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/08/2008 10:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A $28 million city project aimed at improving drainage and beautifying one of the city's prettiest parks is suspected of feeding this massive algae bloom, officials said.
We're from the government. And we're here to help...
#6
Sell the algae for $10/lb. as health food. The lefty vegans would buy it by the truck load. Set a few tons aside at $100/lb. for the really rich and stupid ones. They'd be serving it at art openings and cocktail parties for months.
WASHINGTON--When a candidate calls a second news conference to say the same thing he thought he said in the first one, you know he knows he has a problem.
Thus Barack Obama's twin news conferences last week in Fargo, N.D. At his first, Obama promised he would make a "thorough assessment" of his Iraq policy in his coming visit there and "continue to gather information" to "make sure that our troops are safe, and that Iraq is stable."
You might ask: What's wrong with that? A commander in chief willing to adjust his view to facts and realities should be a refreshing idea.
But when news reports suggested Obama was backing away from his commitment to withdrawing troops from Iraq in 16 months, Obama's lieutenants no doubt heard echoes of those cries of "flip-flop" that rocked the 2004 Republican National Convention and proved devastating to John Kerry.
Another very long opinion piece on Dubya's plans for Asia. First few paragraphs here.
By M K Bhadrakumar
A long time ago, we heard that US President George W Bush had become a lame duck. In April 2005, Craig Crawford, Washington TV commentator who famously distilled the 25 rules for survival in the brutal and manipulative world of American politics, felt certain 'signs abound that the Bush presidency is winding down'.
The news coming in from Iraq was real bad. Four months later, with Hurricane Katrina swamping New Orleans, Jim Lobe of Inter Press Service wrote in September, Bush was 'looking like a 'political lame duck', struggling hard to stay afloat on a rising tide of pessimism and political discontent'. Lobe was not wrong. Indeed, the polls were showing stunning drops in public confidence; moderate Republicans were said to be deserting Bush's camp.
Bush's approval rating today is dismal. The campaign to find his successor is well under way. He is still embattled by the Iraq war. Bush fits the textbook definition of a lame duck. Worse still, as James Forsyth of The Spectator magazine points out, even 'Bush-hatred, like the president himself, has become a lame duck'. There were hardly any public protests during Bush's European tour last month.
Bush is undeterred. He meant what he said during Christmas 2006, 'I'm going to sprint to the finish.' Free of electoral pressures and the tyranny of popularity rating, the sprinter is gaining in velocity. Just as experts began concluding Bush's missile defenses were dying with his presidency comes the news from Washington last Tuesday regarding a US-Poland deal for a future missile shield. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be arriving in Warsaw this week for follow-up. Not only that. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates revealed that Lithuania had agreed to consider hosting a missile interceptor base if the US deal with Poland fell through. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrel explained that 'prudent planning requires that we simultaneously look at backups, if necessary. Lithuania would geographically serve as a good alternative.'
Hadn't heard that one. Putin's gotta be taking the gaspipe ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I suspect Bush will not be "slinking" to Texas and that his Iraq legacy will be positive as well. This will really p### off the liberals of the world.
If the Democrats hadn't had such a bad case of BDS they would have gotten many of their pet projects passed with the support of (the not so conservative) Bush but they were so nutszo that they lost a great many opportunities (thankfully).
#3
I suspect the Iraq war may be effectively over before Bush leaves office. March was the hump, and Basra was the peak of the hump.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/08/2008 9:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
So effectively over that it will be apparent to every one that what ever the next president does, it will be nothing more than what Bush would have done anyway. Bwahahahaha.
#5
Nah Fred - the war won't be over [at least in the eyes of the MSM and Liberals] until the next DEMOCRATIC president wins it for us - no matter if its in 2009, 2013, 2017 or 2021....
The Media, at least, will keep it alive - unless the MSM finally gives up the ghost.
On the eve of his departure from office, President George W Bush's global reputation as a reviled war-monger might appear to be sealed. Yet the most right-wing president in recent memory has become the unlikely darling of anti-poverty activists for his unsung efforts to help Africa.
Under Mr Bush's leadership, America is firmly among the countries who Oliver Buston, a prominent campaigner specialising in tracking the G8's promises, calls the 'good guys'. Mr Buston places America among the G8 nations doing everything possible to redeem the Gleneagles pledge on raising aid budgets.
In the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, America's direct bilateral assistance to Africa was only Pounds 700 million. Mr Bush has almost quadrupled this sum.
Combating Aids once played virtually no part in America's development policies. Mr Bush has established the biggest fund ever devoted to fighting an epidemic. The President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief, funded to the tune of Pounds 7.5 billion, is paying for hundreds of thousands of Africans to receive the life-saving drugs which hold Aids at bay. Mr Bush has also made America the biggest single donor to the Global Fund for Aids, tuberculosis and malaria, contributing one third of its Pounds 5 billion.
No other leader has given as much money to the World Food Programme as Mr Bush. America now provides about half of all the emergency food aid distributed across the globe.
Countries which desperately need this help often have viscerally anti-American governments. The rulers of Sudan and Zimbabwe, where millions depend on emergency food supplies, probably do not grasp the irony of the man they vilify keeping so many of their own people alive.
Bob Geldof, the anti-poverty campaigner, has often praised Mr Bush's 'Africa story'. Overall, however, this side of the president's legacy has earned him few votes and precious little international credit. The point, as Mr Geldof stresses, is that Mr Bush helped Africa anyway.
To quote Orrin Judd: 'W is governing for the world's future, not for headlines in today's fishwrap.'
Not that we should ignore the MSM; as the NYT has demonstrated, a dying empire can cause considerable trouble. But look at what Bush is doing with Africa, India, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Pacific Rim, and you see a long-term strategy that promotes personal liberty, economic freedom and democratic government. That's in the interests of all those countries, and not so coincidentally, it's in ours as well. Perhaps this is why Pinch and Nancy and the rest hate him so.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
All of the above, as Steve W. notes, as well as this may be the month when it dawns on everyone that Iraq is poised to replace KSA as the center of SW Asia/Middle East - its historic role going back millenia.
Look for more play on the respective production and reserve graphs for KSA and Iraq, as well as peripheral diplomatic developments (Dubai is one of basically 3 finalists for the 2016 olympics - be timely to recognize Israel, no?) and wonder how it all happened? Must be Obamaticipation!
Posted by: Pearl Jeager2939 ||
07/08/2008 0:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Radical islam awaits its anti-US HIDDEN IMAM-MAHDI, so does AFRICA + ASIA + AMERICAS in their turn [new generation].
AFAIK IRAN IS GETTING ITS WAY 2008-2012 AND SUNSPOT CYCLE "24" IS STILL RUNNING LATE!
#3
Yet the most right-wing president in recent memory...
The writer must have not been an adult before '92 if he's relying upon his memory. I'm old enough to remember Ronald Reagan. He was certainly more 'conservative' than Georgie. George is a 60's liberal by comparison. Kennedy tax cut, Bush tax cut. Kennedy strong on defense [for a Donk], Bush strong on defense.
After we Boomers die off and the cynical Y'ers get to write the history, I'd like to see the 'revisionist' stories that'll be around.
#4
But look at what Bush is doing with Africa, India, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Pacific Rim, and you see a long-term strategy that promotes personal liberty, economic freedom and democratic government. That's in the interests of all those countries, and not so coincidentally, it's in ours as well.
Bah! Just window dressing Steve, nothing to see here, move along.
Bad Bush!
Bad Bush!
#8
Just wait for the moonbat spin. it is all those mouths in Africa that are causing the food price crises. It is the Indians prosperity creating demand and causing oil prices to go up. It's all Bush's FAULT!
#9
I never did get an answer on whether he was a Retarded Monkey Boy or an Evil Genius With A Diabolical Plan for World Domination.
I think they're still discussing it over at Kos...
#10
The growing consensus I'm detecting from those suffering BDS is the former category with him as Dick Chaney's, of the latter category, sock puppet. That's how they can fit it into their model of the universe.
#11
Well I wish they'd make up their minds, cause you can either be an incredibly devious, evil genius, OR a total r-tard. But not both at the same time.
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama knows that to win the vote of current and former military members and their families, he has to prove himself. 'Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform,' Obama said in a July 2 interview with Military Times as he contrasted his lack of service with that of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, a Navy retiree and Vietnam veteran who has years of experience in Congress working on national security issues.
'I do not presume that from the day I am sworn in, every single service man or woman suddenly says, 'This guy knows what he is doing,'' said Obama, a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, in his most extensive interview to date on a wide range of military issues.
Earning trust, he said, means listening to advice from military people, including top uniformed leaders, combatant commanders and senior noncommissioned officers and petty officers. It also means standing up for the military on critical issues and keeping promises, Obama said. Obama said he hopes the military community will see him as 'a guy looking out for us and not someone trying to score cheap political points.'
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So, throwing the war on terror under the bus, something the troops deeply believe in or they wouldn't have volunteered life and limb to fight this war, will gain thier trust?
This guy is too much like his father, make promises to one woman, then leave her for another.
Like father, like son.
Posted by: a yankee ||
07/08/2008 0:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Community organizing skills in a Chicago Ward aren't actually impressive to the military. Maybe Mr. Ayers putting in a few words won't help the earning part either
#4
wanting to talk to Iran North Korea and everyone but our military leaders doesn't work very well either.
When did he say he'd go over there again, as though it will make much of a difference now, we already know where he is on these issues.
Posted by: Jan ||
07/08/2008 1:33 Comments ||
Top||
#5
No, no, no, Jan. You missed the part where he said he, unlike Bush, has no preconceived notions about Iraq.
See? Feel better?
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/08/2008 5:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I think I got this figured out:
If you're an opponent of the war and think the United States of KKK-A deserves to lose, in order to vote for Obama, you have to believe (1) he was serious about withdrawal in 16 months no matter what, and (2) he's just BS-ing now to get elected and will pivot again as soon as he's inaugurated.
If you prefer that we win the war, then in order to vote for Obama, you have to believe (1) all that stuff about withdrawal in 16 months no matter what was BS to get the rabid BDS sufferers to vote for him in the primary, and (2) what he's saying now is what he'll really do and we should believe him this time.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/08/2008 6:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Here is an easy way to earn the troops trust.
Don't stab the troops in the back:
don't make their sacrifices go in vain:
don't cut their support off:
don't make disparaging comments about them:
don't make disparaging comments about their efforts:
make sure they stay until the job is done.
#8
Yankee hit a nerve. It will be interesting to see if the fruit-tree meme ever hits the MSM. But I bet it gets repeated a lot over a quiet beer, though. One of those old saws educated people scoff at until they become old educated people.
#9
That's it, Obama. Talk to our enemies, let them know you're willing to appease their demands. Convey a perception of weakness such that we wind up with another 9/11 on our hands. Sit down and project your civility with murderous religious militants bent on the destruction of America and the establishment of an Islamic state. Have tea with President Tom whilst his henchmen are working in the background on nuclear devices to be aimed at the US. Break bread with al-Sadr and let him know that we understand and feel his pain even as he issues orders to strike hard at the infidels. Have some warm and fuzzy discussions with Hezbollah's leaders who are in the midst of a campaign to destroy Israel first, and then on to the US.
One cannot reason with unreasonable people. It's a cuddly feeling to want to resolve differences with talks. The hard and cold reality is that the leaders with whom he wants to talk are cold-blooded and hard hearted. They mean the destruction of our nation.
Never ever trust them. Ever.
Posted by: Walter S ||
07/08/2008 8:44 Comments ||
Top||
#10
....that everybody who is willing to lay down their lives on behalf of the United States and can do so effectively,
Strangly worded, not that he would know anything about it selfless service anyway, the worthless piece of kak.
#12
It's an exotic world for you 0. You'll have to adjust to an atmosphere with more integrity, trust and honor than you've ever encountered in all your time in Chicago or the beltway. The troops have no intention of being another 'one under the bus' O. In your high flying life these days you missed the story about the Marines who refused to testify in a witch trial in Blue Country. When the chips are down and the situation is darkest, the troops rely upon each other, even on to death or as the Great Liberator called it, the last full measure of devotion. They hear talk all the time. It doesn't take long for the troops to smell a poser among their ranks. The troops have no time for posers. You can buy generals by the handful [just ask Wesley], but you can not buy the loyalty of the troops but through loyalty back to them. It's a two way street. Checking PM on the undercarriage of the bus is not going to get that result.
#14
What BHO wants is to turn the military into another welfare program. He will spend all the money on "personnel programs" not military training and equipment.
The only thing he would use the military for would be disaster relief around the world, particularly enemy states. So why would they need guns?
#15
like his Freudian slip the other day: "My Joint Chiefs of Staff"
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/08/2008 10:03 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Military members and their families deserve better pay and benefits, he said, and although money might be hard to find for a generous increase, he supports increasing basic pay to keep up with inflation and private-sector salaries, and he believes housing allowances need to be increased so young service members and their families can afford adequate places to live.
He seems to have confused the military with another special interest group, easily bribed into compliance with cash.
I'll believe he's interested in the military when he actually goes and visits some units & talks to some troops. Have I missed any photo-op visits over the last two years?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/08/2008 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Let me re-phrase: I'll believe that he *wants* us to think that he cares about the military when he starts making a big deal out of doing photo-ops with the troops. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue - so what do you call it when they don't even bother with that tribute?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/08/2008 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Not sure Frank, whether it was in that same discussion, but he also added,
"I'm surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured. I wasn't saying anything I hadn't said before, that I didn't say a year ago or when I was a United States senator
," said Obama.
Did I miss his resigning from the Senate?
#20
#16 Military members and their families deserve better pay and benefits, he said, and although money might be hard to find for a generous increase
THERE it is! First predicted here a couple of weeks ago. Watch him release his plan for a BIG military pay increase when he gets to the Gulf. So Cook County, Chicagoesque. One must wonder if he speaks to Jimmy Carter DAILY!
Why don't you come back in 20 years when you actually have something to put on your resume?
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/08/2008 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#22
LOL - I heard the US Postal Service was going to issue new stamps... with BHO's resume on them
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/08/2008 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#23
So he is going to earn their respect by paying them off? I don't see how that would do it (knowing the people I know in the military) other than, "Thanks for the money, but you are still an ass." or "All I am is a dollar amount to you?" It took years to earn the respect of my firefighter group and there is no money involved in that, so figure that one out mr. lawyer.
Even jf'nk at least took a helicopter ride in Afghanistan (Pampers unavailable for comment).
#24
I didn't ponder it before, but its a bad bad precedent to try to 'buy' the troops favors. Ask the Roman rulers. It tells you something when you have to buy favor that it treats the military as a separate constituency, one with significant influence not only as an entity of itself but its credibility in the society as a whole that you would make such an effort, and that it is one in which the pay off is in cold hard cash not grandiose symbolism. Competing egos for the office of Caesar bidding up the army. Not good. However, the pursuit of power never was about morality.
#26
So he is going to earn their respect by paying them off?
It works in Chicago. They call it 'quid pro quo' which is Latin for 'piles of frozen money in the freezer'.
As long as Obama has respected and revered military advisors like Weasley Clark (Hero of the Battle of Pristina Airport) and HalpUsJohn Kerry (failed Presidential goofus), he will have all the military respect & trust he can handle.
#27
Too late doofus. you have already said enough to never earn the trust of this vet. and i can probably find another 25 or so easily within the little ol' factory out here in beeyouiful Skagit Valley, WA.
(PS, your big mouth wife ain't helping you so very much, either)
#28
An Army poll taken among recent recruits showed that among the pollees overall the primary reason for enlisting was to serve the country. Results differed a lot depending on which subgroup the recruits fell into. For African Americans, service came in behind career issues.
Obama's tuned into that demographic among the troops, I suspect.
#29
I want to add that I know and respect many Black career soldiers who put service and sacrifice at the top of their values list. That poll definitely does not speak about them. It was done by human resources command and looked at the self-identified motivations of kids considering whether or not to enlist.
#30
The reasons for choosing to enlist on the one hand, and later choosing to re-enlist on the other are likely very different. I suspect that the groups converge in motivation for choosing the latter.
Last week I communicated to Senator Obama and his presidential campaign my firm intention to remain in the United States Senate, where I believe I am best equipped to serve the people of Virginia and this country. Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President.
A year and a half ago, the people of Virginia honored me with election to the U.S. Senate. I entered elective politics because of my commitment to strengthen Americas national security posture, to promote economic fairness, and to increase government accountability. I have worked hard to deliver upon that commitment, and I am convinced that my efforts and talents toward those ends are best served in the Senate.
In this regard, the bipartisan legislative template we were able to put into effect through 18 months of work in order to enact the new, landmark GI Bill will serve as a prototype for my future endeavors in government. This process, wherein we brought 58 Senators from both parties to the table as co-sponsors, along with more than 300 members of the House, gives me renewed confidence that the Congress can indeed work effectively across party lines and address the concerns of our citizens.
At this time I am also renewing my commitment to work hard to make sure that Senator Obama wins both Virginia and the presidency this November. He is a man who speaks eloquently about our national goals and calls for the practical solutions that must be put into place to obtain them. I will proudly campaign for him.
I don't recall anyone asking him. I sure don't recall seeing Obama say anything about him. Perhaps Jimbo found out that he's not on the short bus list?
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#8
Something about the photo reminds me of "Oompa Loompa Doodly-doo..."
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
07/08/2008 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"The Vice-Presidency, you offer me? The chance to be your running-mate, your sidekick? Fool! Do you think I can be bought so easily? Do you think I grovel for a lackey's wages? I spit on your vice-presidency!"
Posted by: Mike ||
07/08/2008 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
#10
So, is he saying that his year and half in the Senate does not qualify him to be vice-president?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
WASHINGTON--When a candidate calls a second news conference to say the same thing he thought he said in the first one, you know he knows he has a problem.
On the eve of his departure from office, President George W Bush's global reputation as a reviled war-monger might appear to be sealed. Yet the most right-wing president in recent memory has become the unlikely darling of anti-poverty activists for his unsung efforts to help Africa.
From the Webb office:
