Lets see...
Federal spending has increased 9% just this year - after a record of 16% in 2009.
We are throwing away money that we don't have to dead people and criminals. And lets not forget the chinese 'sex workers', co-eds and turtles.
Meanwhile, the dollar is sliding into irrelevance.
What's a desperate Fed to do? Inflation!
The Pelosi-led Congress cut and ran a week early without passing a budget or even taking a vote on the Bush tax cuts.
A record breaking 41 million people are now on food stamps. Ironically, some Obama supporters will have to stop drinking the kool-aid, at least if they live in NYC.
The United States has ceded sovereignty over a large piece of Arizona, Pakistan is taking billions of our taxpayer dollars with one hand and stabbing us in the back with the other, and Iran is eagerly exploring the trafficking possibilities in Afghanistan.
The woman leading Congress thinks that food stamps and unemployment checks are the "biggest bang" for our stimulus buck.
A congressman running for reelection claims there is no national debt.
Is it any wonder republicans are leading in the polls?
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Friday, October 8, 2010
Sunday, November 15, 2009
WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?
The New York Times, in a breathtakingly obtuse move, is trying to spin Obama's indecisiveness about Afghanistan. So what ridiculous excuse are they tossing in a trial balloon and floating out through their favorite neo-pravda media outlet?
Expense.
That's right, the administration that has been and is still attempting to spend our money like drunken sailors is citing budget constraints as a reason to not send troops.
Of all the arguments they could have used, this has to be the lamest. How about the old 'Vietnam-like quagmire' argument? Or maybe the loss of life is too precious and the outcome too uncertain?
No, they chose the money argument.
If they were at least trying to be more frugal in other policy areas, they might have a chance of persuading people to this argument. But they are flagrantly spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars in just about every other sector, and yet, suddenly, the only thing they are NOT throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at is the war. The war that Obama himself called the 'good war'.
Let's not forget that they are adding pork to the military funding bills, to the tune of billions of dollars. Stopping that practice alone would pay for 2,000+ boots on the ground for a year at the NYT's quoted cost estimate of $1 million per soldier per year. A number which is suddenly three times larger than the amount used just a year ago under the Bush administration. The Times cites increased cost due to mine-resistant troop carriers and surveillance equipment, as well as the large cost involved in transporting fuel and supplies in the mountainous region.
Just imagine the army we could have fielded with the $787 billion non-stimulating stimulus bill - not to mention the $1.7 trillion health care bill! Plus there's Cap and Tax in the chute and I'm sure amnesty isn't going to be as free as it sounds....
All in all, I'd have to say Mr. Obama has made it very clear that, although he loves the global adoration, that is all foreign policy is for him - an ego stroke. He doesn't want to get involved, because he's too busy "fundamentally changing" the United States of America. Allowing us to leave in defeat from Afghanistan plays into the far-left world view anyway. America should not win under any circumstances because it makes us seem arrogant and superior, apparently. It's okay with them if we leave a power vacuum that will breed more terrorists and undermine, discourage and demoralize our military yet again. Incompetence is apparently preferred to perceived superiority.
It's this sort of nonsensical thinking that must have lead them to offer budget constraints as their asinine argument for not increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.
The blatant hypocrisies of this administration boggle the mind.
Expense.
That's right, the administration that has been and is still attempting to spend our money like drunken sailors is citing budget constraints as a reason to not send troops.
Of all the arguments they could have used, this has to be the lamest. How about the old 'Vietnam-like quagmire' argument? Or maybe the loss of life is too precious and the outcome too uncertain?
No, they chose the money argument.
If they were at least trying to be more frugal in other policy areas, they might have a chance of persuading people to this argument. But they are flagrantly spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars in just about every other sector, and yet, suddenly, the only thing they are NOT throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at is the war. The war that Obama himself called the 'good war'.
Let's not forget that they are adding pork to the military funding bills, to the tune of billions of dollars. Stopping that practice alone would pay for 2,000+ boots on the ground for a year at the NYT's quoted cost estimate of $1 million per soldier per year. A number which is suddenly three times larger than the amount used just a year ago under the Bush administration. The Times cites increased cost due to mine-resistant troop carriers and surveillance equipment, as well as the large cost involved in transporting fuel and supplies in the mountainous region.
Just imagine the army we could have fielded with the $787 billion non-stimulating stimulus bill - not to mention the $1.7 trillion health care bill! Plus there's Cap and Tax in the chute and I'm sure amnesty isn't going to be as free as it sounds....
All in all, I'd have to say Mr. Obama has made it very clear that, although he loves the global adoration, that is all foreign policy is for him - an ego stroke. He doesn't want to get involved, because he's too busy "fundamentally changing" the United States of America. Allowing us to leave in defeat from Afghanistan plays into the far-left world view anyway. America should not win under any circumstances because it makes us seem arrogant and superior, apparently. It's okay with them if we leave a power vacuum that will breed more terrorists and undermine, discourage and demoralize our military yet again. Incompetence is apparently preferred to perceived superiority.
It's this sort of nonsensical thinking that must have lead them to offer budget constraints as their asinine argument for not increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.
The blatant hypocrisies of this administration boggle the mind.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
CAMPAIGN MODE
Barack Obama truly is the permanent candidate.
For a few months after the inauguration, he stayed busy glad-handing the DC social set and 'thanking' major supporters, with an occasional directive coming down to Congress from on high, but when the going got tough, Obama hit the trail.
Needless to say, things have really not gotten much better. In fact, the heat is turning up, with even supporters starting to criticize.
Predictably, our Candidate-in-Chief is off fundraising and campaigning. Now that the election cycle is really kicking in, I expect to see more campaign and fundraising events and less governance. After all, campaigning is what he does best, and he needs the affirmation of the adulation. All of the recent criticism must surely be wearing on him, and he seems to be diving into full blown campaign mode with relish.
After all, its not like there is more pressing business to attend to.
Well, except trying to destroy Fox News and cramming overpriced, under servicing health care 'reform' down our throats. At least the economy is great and Afghanistan is taken care of. Amazing how our president is backing away from the fight against the people who masterminded 9/11, and yet is jumping into the Fox News fray with fangs bared. So Presidential.
The Fox News attack actually makes sense, though, when put in the campaign context. Vilifying Fox creates a bad guy the nation can rally against. Obama used Bush to great effect during the 2008 campaign, even though he was running against McCain. Casting Fox as the villain of the 2009 campaign actually serves a few purposes.
First, we are distracted from the backdoor dealings on health care. Second, he rallies his base against big bad Fox. And third, he is able to give the 'Bush is the bad guy' meme a much needed rest. A word to the wise, though, oh Enlightened One - yes, the distraction part is working, and some of the (shrinking) base may be rallying, but people are tired of excuses and are looking for you to lead, so be careful of a multi-pronged backlash from a burned-out public tired of scapegoating and a press who might be irked at being called, yet again, the White House lapdog.
Forget the Fox war and endorse democrats not from the campaign trail, but from the Oval Office when you take a quick break from governing. You know, the thing you were elected to do? Heck, you could film the endorsements with your new White House news crew when you are out in the Rose Garden sneaking a smoke!
Time to get off the trail, Mr. President. Remember, you won.
Oh, and by the way, when you are out on the stump for whatever cause you are speechifying for that day, when you say 'cable news', we all know you mean Fox. Please stop underestimating our intelligence.
For a few months after the inauguration, he stayed busy glad-handing the DC social set and 'thanking' major supporters, with an occasional directive coming down to Congress from on high, but when the going got tough, Obama hit the trail.
Needless to say, things have really not gotten much better. In fact, the heat is turning up, with even supporters starting to criticize.
Predictably, our Candidate-in-Chief is off fundraising and campaigning. Now that the election cycle is really kicking in, I expect to see more campaign and fundraising events and less governance. After all, campaigning is what he does best, and he needs the affirmation of the adulation. All of the recent criticism must surely be wearing on him, and he seems to be diving into full blown campaign mode with relish.
After all, its not like there is more pressing business to attend to.
Well, except trying to destroy Fox News and cramming overpriced, under servicing health care 'reform' down our throats. At least the economy is great and Afghanistan is taken care of. Amazing how our president is backing away from the fight against the people who masterminded 9/11, and yet is jumping into the Fox News fray with fangs bared. So Presidential.
The Fox News attack actually makes sense, though, when put in the campaign context. Vilifying Fox creates a bad guy the nation can rally against. Obama used Bush to great effect during the 2008 campaign, even though he was running against McCain. Casting Fox as the villain of the 2009 campaign actually serves a few purposes.
First, we are distracted from the backdoor dealings on health care. Second, he rallies his base against big bad Fox. And third, he is able to give the 'Bush is the bad guy' meme a much needed rest. A word to the wise, though, oh Enlightened One - yes, the distraction part is working, and some of the (shrinking) base may be rallying, but people are tired of excuses and are looking for you to lead, so be careful of a multi-pronged backlash from a burned-out public tired of scapegoating and a press who might be irked at being called, yet again, the White House lapdog.
Forget the Fox war and endorse democrats not from the campaign trail, but from the Oval Office when you take a quick break from governing. You know, the thing you were elected to do? Heck, you could film the endorsements with your new White House news crew when you are out in the Rose Garden sneaking a smoke!
Time to get off the trail, Mr. President. Remember, you won.
Oh, and by the way, when you are out on the stump for whatever cause you are speechifying for that day, when you say 'cable news', we all know you mean Fox. Please stop underestimating our intelligence.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
'AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES'
In my research for various posts, I have had to read a fair amount of congressional legislation. In all of the bills I have read, there is one thing that is consistent. On the title page of all of the bills is the name of the bill and its sponsors, and then there is this phrase:
"And for other purposes"
Those four little words have cost us literally billions of dollars.
That phrase is how a military spending bill can also be used to finance non-military things like the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network and the Edward M. Kennedy educational institute. In this one bill alone there are 778 earmarks, to the tune of $2.6 billion. That's $2.6 billion that is NOT going to training, protecting or arming our troops, in a time when we are involved in not one but two hot wars. You can be sure that $2.6 billion will be counted in the overall cost of the wars, though, when opponents talk about the cost of war being too high.
The phrase 'And for other purposes' should be outlawed from legislation.
Lawmakers like to call earmarks 'sweeteners' - a way of enticing support for a less than popular bill. The problem is, all of these sweeteners have given this country a near fatal case of fiscal diabetes from all of the 'goodies' it has been force fed for the past few decades.
This administration touts 'transparency' and 'accountability', and yet continues to support the plague of earmarks flowing out of Washington. Instead of billions in sweeteners, how about crafting truly bi-partisan legislation that a majority can get behind without having to be coerced.
Stop laughing, it could happen....
Those earmarks are nothing more than vote buying mechanisms for congressional re-election bids, and the fact that the cumulative effect is crippling our country is a minor concern to legislators desperate to stay in office, no matter the cost.
Wouldn't it be a refreshing change if our federal legislators left the local pet projects to local and state governments where they belong and instead concentrated on doing what was best for the country as a whole?
"And for other purposes"
Those four little words have cost us literally billions of dollars.
That phrase is how a military spending bill can also be used to finance non-military things like the Hawaii Federal Health Care Network and the Edward M. Kennedy educational institute. In this one bill alone there are 778 earmarks, to the tune of $2.6 billion. That's $2.6 billion that is NOT going to training, protecting or arming our troops, in a time when we are involved in not one but two hot wars. You can be sure that $2.6 billion will be counted in the overall cost of the wars, though, when opponents talk about the cost of war being too high.
The phrase 'And for other purposes' should be outlawed from legislation.
Lawmakers like to call earmarks 'sweeteners' - a way of enticing support for a less than popular bill. The problem is, all of these sweeteners have given this country a near fatal case of fiscal diabetes from all of the 'goodies' it has been force fed for the past few decades.
This administration touts 'transparency' and 'accountability', and yet continues to support the plague of earmarks flowing out of Washington. Instead of billions in sweeteners, how about crafting truly bi-partisan legislation that a majority can get behind without having to be coerced.
Stop laughing, it could happen....
Those earmarks are nothing more than vote buying mechanisms for congressional re-election bids, and the fact that the cumulative effect is crippling our country is a minor concern to legislators desperate to stay in office, no matter the cost.
Wouldn't it be a refreshing change if our federal legislators left the local pet projects to local and state governments where they belong and instead concentrated on doing what was best for the country as a whole?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
BIDEN THEIR TIME
The Obama administration is saying that they will have a decision on troop levels in Afghanistan in 'coming weeks'. Let's hope the casualties are kept to a minimum until Dear Leader makes up his mind on who to cater to - the Norwegians, or his own countrymen.
I understand that this is a very important decision, and something that shouldn't be rushed into, but when Obama let McChrystal's report languish on his desk for 5 weeks with no consultation or consideration, there was simply no excuse for the delay. Now that Obama is finally talking to his generals and military advisers, taking a little time (weeks, not months) to make an informed decision is a necessary evil. At least progress is being made in understanding the situation on the ground, which will hopefully translate into a thoughtful, successful approach to winning the war in Afghanistan.
Senator Inouye D-HI has done an about-face on supporting the war in Afghanistan. His recent trip to the region and discussions with Gen. McChrystal have garnered his full support of McChrystal's plan, and he is now pressuring the administration to implement the plan. He is joined in his support by none other than Sen. Diane Feinstein.
These two democrats actually listened to McChrystal's plan and saw the sense of it. They know the Taliban, as well as Al-Qaeda, are the enemy, and they see that McChrystal's plan is more than just bombing, it's building, too. Building a democracy, building a country, and building hope for the future for Afghans. With any luck, our esteemed leader will see the wisdom of this and follow through.
Unfortunately, there are rumors that VP Joe Biden still has his ear, even after Obama reportedly rejected his proposal of withdrawal and surgical strikes of terrorist strongholds.
Don't get me wrong - surgical strikes are something I support. But if surgical strikes are the only thing we would be doing, it would cause more harm than good, turning the Afghan people against us and potentially leaving a power vacuum that would be filled by the Taliban, just as it was when the USSR finally pulled out of the region in the late 1980's. The key here is not just eliminating the enemy, it's empowering the Afghan people to resist oppressive groups like the Taliban even after we leave. Even the radicals over at Code Pink see the truth in this.
The biggest question about all of this is, why in God's name would they listen to Joe Biden over generals in the field?
At this point, given his track record, the administration would be wise to consider whatever Biden proposes, and then do the exact opposite.
Success would be practically guaranteed.
I understand that this is a very important decision, and something that shouldn't be rushed into, but when Obama let McChrystal's report languish on his desk for 5 weeks with no consultation or consideration, there was simply no excuse for the delay. Now that Obama is finally talking to his generals and military advisers, taking a little time (weeks, not months) to make an informed decision is a necessary evil. At least progress is being made in understanding the situation on the ground, which will hopefully translate into a thoughtful, successful approach to winning the war in Afghanistan.
Senator Inouye D-HI has done an about-face on supporting the war in Afghanistan. His recent trip to the region and discussions with Gen. McChrystal have garnered his full support of McChrystal's plan, and he is now pressuring the administration to implement the plan. He is joined in his support by none other than Sen. Diane Feinstein.
These two democrats actually listened to McChrystal's plan and saw the sense of it. They know the Taliban, as well as Al-Qaeda, are the enemy, and they see that McChrystal's plan is more than just bombing, it's building, too. Building a democracy, building a country, and building hope for the future for Afghans. With any luck, our esteemed leader will see the wisdom of this and follow through.
Unfortunately, there are rumors that VP Joe Biden still has his ear, even after Obama reportedly rejected his proposal of withdrawal and surgical strikes of terrorist strongholds.
Don't get me wrong - surgical strikes are something I support. But if surgical strikes are the only thing we would be doing, it would cause more harm than good, turning the Afghan people against us and potentially leaving a power vacuum that would be filled by the Taliban, just as it was when the USSR finally pulled out of the region in the late 1980's. The key here is not just eliminating the enemy, it's empowering the Afghan people to resist oppressive groups like the Taliban even after we leave. Even the radicals over at Code Pink see the truth in this.
The biggest question about all of this is, why in God's name would they listen to Joe Biden over generals in the field?
At this point, given his track record, the administration would be wise to consider whatever Biden proposes, and then do the exact opposite.
Success would be practically guaranteed.
Monday, October 5, 2009
MCCHRYSTAL vs OBAMA
General Stanley McChrystal, the head of NATO forces in the Afghan theater, has thrown down the gauntlet, and President Obama is rather peeved. In a speech to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a British international security think tank, McChrystal once again made the case for a surge of upwards of 40,000 troops. He also went on Sunday's 60 Minutes to promote his plan.
Critics are attacking McChrystal for circumventing the usual political channels and going to the public to force his will on the administration.
I wonder, could his more strident pleas for reinforcements and his tactic of turning to the public for help against a beta-male administration be more about saving our troops and winning a war than 'forcing his will'?
The men and women under his command are much more than just boots on the ground for General McChrystal. A good general is like a good father, looking out for the welfare of his children, working to keep them safe but still allowing them to take the risks that often bring success. They are his troops, and it is his job to use them wisely, keep deaths and injuries to an absolute minimum and make as much progress towards victory as possible, not just for prestige, but because those men and women are under his care. They are his responsibility, and people are dying.
Obama himself hired McChrystal, and one would assume he made sure to put someone in position who reflected his views. But as with many other aspects of this administration, that assumption of common sense seems to have been completely unfounded. But ignoring the issue is not the way to go, and I think that McChrystal was doing what he needed to do to protect his troops.
What other alternative did he have, faced with a Commander in Chief who is more interested in winning the Olympics for his hometown than winning a war for his country?
Let's face it, the past nine months have shown us that the only way to get Obama's chin out of the air and actually listen to others' opinions is to forcefully demand his attention, and that is what McChrystal did. When people are dying, you do what has to be done to get the mission accomplished.
There are those who say that Obama is favoring VP Joe Biden's plan to rely on Predator strikes, special forces missions and training the Afghans. Those are good ideas, but it's just not enough. And, quite frankly, I have yet to understand why Biden is considered such a foreign policy wonk, but Obama's poor judgement of people has reached epic proportions, so I can't really say I'm surprised. Apparently our self-righteous 'representatives' in Washington believe that 36 years on the Foreign Relations Committee has far more weight than 30+ years in the field.
McChrystal is advocating a counter-insurgency plan, along the lines of the surge in Iraq. We need more boots on the ground because, just like Iraq, the politicians under staffed, under estimated and under funded. Which is why wars are usually lost when politicians wage them instead of generals. They are unwilling to spend the necessary amounts of blood and treasure, for fear of losing re-election. Generals just want to win the war, and good ones want to do it with as little loss of life as possible. And, as any good general knows, winning the hearts and minds of the people is vital to success - pushing forward relies heavily on being sure you will not be attacked from the rear. Building a strong relationship with local leaders' support and protection is essential - something a community organizer should know.
The problem here, as in Iraq, is foreign insurgents. It's one thing to estimate the number of locals willing to fight, but how do you estimate foreign fighters? All you can do is compensate as it happens.
Which is what McChrystal is doing.
So let him do it.
The surge won Iraq, whether the left wants to acknowledge it or not, and it can win Afghanistan, too.
But if Obama wants to 'cut and run', he needs to make the decision soon, before more American lives are lost.
Critics are attacking McChrystal for circumventing the usual political channels and going to the public to force his will on the administration.
I wonder, could his more strident pleas for reinforcements and his tactic of turning to the public for help against a beta-male administration be more about saving our troops and winning a war than 'forcing his will'?
The men and women under his command are much more than just boots on the ground for General McChrystal. A good general is like a good father, looking out for the welfare of his children, working to keep them safe but still allowing them to take the risks that often bring success. They are his troops, and it is his job to use them wisely, keep deaths and injuries to an absolute minimum and make as much progress towards victory as possible, not just for prestige, but because those men and women are under his care. They are his responsibility, and people are dying.
I'd say that's reason enough to make waves, wouldn't you?
He wrote a report after a few months in the field, assessing the situation and making recommendations on how to proceed. What he saw did not make him happy, and he was blunt in his assessment to the President. That report then sat on Obama's desk for a month as he flitted around the country, pushing for health care reform. Contact between the president and general have been minimal - never a good idea during a hot war.
Hey, Mr. President, if you really want to save some lives, how about doing some of that 'multitasking' you are so big on and pay attention to the plight our troops are in.Obama himself hired McChrystal, and one would assume he made sure to put someone in position who reflected his views. But as with many other aspects of this administration, that assumption of common sense seems to have been completely unfounded. But ignoring the issue is not the way to go, and I think that McChrystal was doing what he needed to do to protect his troops.
What other alternative did he have, faced with a Commander in Chief who is more interested in winning the Olympics for his hometown than winning a war for his country?
Let's face it, the past nine months have shown us that the only way to get Obama's chin out of the air and actually listen to others' opinions is to forcefully demand his attention, and that is what McChrystal did. When people are dying, you do what has to be done to get the mission accomplished.
There are those who say that Obama is favoring VP Joe Biden's plan to rely on Predator strikes, special forces missions and training the Afghans. Those are good ideas, but it's just not enough. And, quite frankly, I have yet to understand why Biden is considered such a foreign policy wonk, but Obama's poor judgement of people has reached epic proportions, so I can't really say I'm surprised. Apparently our self-righteous 'representatives' in Washington believe that 36 years on the Foreign Relations Committee has far more weight than 30+ years in the field.
McChrystal is advocating a counter-insurgency plan, along the lines of the surge in Iraq. We need more boots on the ground because, just like Iraq, the politicians under staffed, under estimated and under funded. Which is why wars are usually lost when politicians wage them instead of generals. They are unwilling to spend the necessary amounts of blood and treasure, for fear of losing re-election. Generals just want to win the war, and good ones want to do it with as little loss of life as possible. And, as any good general knows, winning the hearts and minds of the people is vital to success - pushing forward relies heavily on being sure you will not be attacked from the rear. Building a strong relationship with local leaders' support and protection is essential - something a community organizer should know.
The problem here, as in Iraq, is foreign insurgents. It's one thing to estimate the number of locals willing to fight, but how do you estimate foreign fighters? All you can do is compensate as it happens.
Which is what McChrystal is doing.
So let him do it.
The surge won Iraq, whether the left wants to acknowledge it or not, and it can win Afghanistan, too.
But if Obama wants to 'cut and run', he needs to make the decision soon, before more American lives are lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
