The themes from this recent O'Reilly Factor Talking Points Memo are not likely to go away. Health insurance rates are on the rise. The health insurance companies are blaming Obamacare for the rise in costs. This part in particular will prove politically deadly for President Obama.
As we stated Wednesday night, American health insurance companies are building in the anticipated costs of Obamacare. For the next four years until the Obamacare program completely kicks in in 2014, all Americans are going to be hammered as the insurance companies try to make as much money as they can before the federal rules are imposed.
I don't know about you, but I never heard this part of Obamacare. I was never told that my insurance rates were going to run wild.
Were you told that? Did President Obama mention that? I don't believe he did.
If you believe Dick Morris, the President wants rates to go up so that he can institute single payer in 2014. Of course, he won't be around in 2014 because his policies are all a colossal failure and we are seeing the beginning of that abject failure in real terms with Obamacare right now.
The fact is that Obama claimed that Obamacare would bend the cost curve downward and instead rates are skyrocketing up and the insurance companies are blaming Obama. So, the economy is horrible. Unemployment is near ten percent. The border is a mess. Afghanistan is a mess. Now, health insurance premiums are skyrocketing as a result of the very policies that Obama claimed would make them come down. To add to that, both Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters may have their congressional trials in September. That's an unmitigated Democratic disaster. ob
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is under increasing pressure from within his own party to step down for saying the nine-year old U.S. military conflict in Afghanistan is a "war of Obama's choosing" that history suggests is "probably a lost cause."
Steele has tried to quell the growing uproar by issuing a statement and sending an e-mail to the 162 members of the national committee stressing his support of U.S. troops.
But that hasn't stopped the criticism that continued to swell Saturday.
You are, I know, a patriot. So I ask you to consider, over this July 4 weekend, doing an act of service for the country you love: Resign as chairman of the Republican party.
Your tenure has of course been marked by gaffes and embarrassments, but I for one have never paid much attention to them, and have never thought they would matter much to the success of the causes and principles we share. But now you have said, about the war in Afghanistan, speaking as RNC chairman at an RNC event, "Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in." And, "if [Obama] is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?"
Needless to say, the war in Afghanistan was not "a war of Obama’s choosing." It has been prosecuted by the United States under Presidents Bush and Obama. Republicans have consistently supported the effort. Indeed, as the DNC
The calls will only continue to grow and at some point Steele will have to step down. The comments are reprehensible and inexcusable, and Steele's tenure has been far from great to begin with.
Former General Stanley McChrystal put President Obama into a near impossible position and President Obama may have turned that into a deciding turning point in the Afghan war.
President Barack Obama on Wednesday replaced Gen. Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan and nominated Gen. David Petraeus to replace him while affirming support for a counterinsurgency strategy encountering problems.
The dramatic shift came a day after McChrystal's disparaging comments about America's civilian leadership surfaced, and reignited the national debate on the war in Afghanistan -- now in its eighth year with a June death toll of coalition forces that is close to becoming the highest of the war.
Obama accepted McChrystal's resignation "with considerable regret" and named Petraeus, the head of the U.S. Central Command, to take over pending Senate confirmation.
Folks like Joe Liberman and John McCain are fond of saying...
General Petreaus literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency
That's because that is true both figuratively and literally. With the successful campaign in Iraq, Petraeus showed the world how to run a counterinsurgency manual. Meanwhile, his actual counterinsurgency manual was published in 2006, shortly before he went to Iraq. Petraeus is taking over with the Afghan theater in disarray but then again, nothing liked more dire than Iraq circa the beginning of 2007. Petraeus has an opportunity to make a case in every history book as America's greatest military person.
Afghanistan has three x factors: the rules of engagement, the timeline for withdrawal, and most importantly, Karzai. Immediately, we'll see if Petraeus will make the rules of engagement. The confirmation hearing should also be a pre qual to his battle over a timeline. Karzai remains the biggest concern. In Iraq, however, no one thought that Nuri Al Maliki could be a great leader right up until he was. Will Karzai go the way of Maliki or the South Vietnamese?
How many times have you heard a pundit make that proclamation about the president in the last year? I can think of at least five times in the last year when someone has made that proclamation. That doesn't say much for the president, but I also expect someone to make that proclamation again.
The nuclear bomb, pardon the pun, left by General McChrystal today has left the president with few options. If he doesn't fire McChrystal, he looks weak. Meanwhile, if he does, Afghanistan goes into even greater chaos. No matter what he does, McChrystal's words have left the impression that the Obama administration is in complete chaos.
Then, today a U.S. District judge ruled that the Obama administration's six month moratorium is illegal.
In a victory for drilling proponents, a federal judge struck down President Obama's six-month moratorium on
deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico on Tuesday, saying the administration rashly concluded that because one rig failed, the others are in immediate danger, too.
The White House promised an immediate appeal. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president believes strongly that drilling at such depths does not make sense and puts the safety of workers "at a danger that the president does not believe we can afford."
The Interior Department had halted approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended drilling of 33 exploratory wells in the Gulf.
The policy is already unpopular and now a judge has ruled it illegal. Just think about that. General McChrystal claims that Obama knows nothing about war policy and a judge says he knows about as much about the law.
The announcement by the administration that they'll sue Arizona, which went over about as well as all their policies, was immediately followed by Jon Kyl's shocking accusation that Obama is holding the border hostage to comprehensive immigration reform which is about as popular as Obamacare.
This all happened this week. It's yet another bad week in what is quickly turning into a disastrous Presidency.
The top U.S. war commander in Afghanistan is being called to the White House for a meeting with President Obama after issuing an apology Tuesday for an interview in which he took shots at top administration officials and his staff described the president as unprepared for their first one-on-one encounter.
In the article in this week's issue of Rolling Stone, Gen. Stanley McChrystal also said he felt betrayed and blind-sided by his diplomatic partner, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry.
McChrystal's comments are reverberating through Washington and the Pentagon after the magazine depicted him as a lone wolf on the outs with many important figures in the Obama administration.
Some conservatives, like Laura Ingraham, have been downplaying just how unprofessional these comments were and instead holding them out as another sign of the chaos of the Obama administration. That's a mistake. Thes comments are inexcusable. Last I checked, most of the folks that were disparaged in the Rolling Stone piece are folks that McChrystal reports to.
I don't know what things are like on the ground in Afghanistan. It's very possible that things are chaotic on the ground and McChrystal may feel as though the administration isn't giving him the support necessary to win. That's no excuse for trashing most of it in public like this. The military relies on discipline and respect for the chain of command is tantamount to that discipline. McChrystal wouldn't stand for any soldier saying something like this about him to the media and no one should accept him doing it.
My cohort in the Watcher of Weasels, Bookworm room, wrote what I thought was an excellent introduction, but it was the whole post. She did, however, give me carte blanche to use that intro and turn it into a full commentary. So, alas...
Reading the news today about, among other things, the Gulf oil spill, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Euro collapse, Iran, Israel, Turkey, the economy, the border, and illegal immigration, I’ve had two phrases that stuck in my brain and refuse to leave. The first is Janet Napolitano’s near-deathless bit of bureaucratese, “man-caused disasters,” one that she and her minions created to obscure the fact that Islamic fundamentalism is the common denominator binding together those mass killings around the world that involve guns, airplanes, tractors, rocket launches, beheadings, beatings, hangings, etc.
The second phrase is Obama’s statement, one with which I fully agree, that “elections have consequences.”
Combine those two phrases — “elections have consequences” and “man-caused disaster” — and you end up with this, the ultimate man-caused disaster:
This man caused disaster wasted no time. The chief of staff boldly proclaimed that we can't let a crisis go to waste, and the man caused disaster wasted no time. Not two months into his term, this man caused disaster spent $787 billion. That was supposed to keep our unemployment rate below 8% but of course it's hit 10% and hovers near there since. This man caused disaster told us we must spend this money. After all, the solution to a crisis in which families and banks took on too much debt could only be solved by the government taking on too much debt. Voila. Now, the government does have too much debt. This man caused disaster didn't create debts and deficits. Instead, the man caused disaster created debts and deficits 2.0. Now, we have deficits way north of $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. Our debt is nearing in on 100% of our GDP and Moody's is threatening to cut our bond ratings. They're only threatening but these threats haven't changed the mind of this man caused disaster. So, sometime in the next few months, a year, or a few years those threats will be a reality. Then, this man caused disaster will cause a disaster to anyone that wants to borrow for a car, a house, a credit card, or even a student loan.
So far, the only man caused disaster of this man caused disaster's notorious health care bill will be the man caused disaster at the ballot box for Democrats this November. Soon, though, everyone will feel the effects of this man caused disaster. We recently learned that about half of those that have health insurance will lose it. We've learned that health care costs will increase 20% more than they would have without the bill, and we've learned that about 15% of hospitals will go out of business trying to comply with this man caused disaster all caused by the man caused disaster known as Obamacare.
The border is so porous that Phoenix now only trails Mexico City in kidnappings. The state of Arizona is so desperate that they passed their own law to enforce federal immigration laws. The key difference will be that Arizona will actually enforce this law. How does the man caused disaster respond? He won't enforce any immigration laws until we all agree to grant amnesty to up to 20 million folks that entered the country illegally. Oh, and, he'll sue the state of Arizona for having the gall to do the job he refuses to do.
This man caused disaster spent the entire campaign telling Americans that Afghanistan was the good war (as opposed to Iraq which would then be the bad war) So, he escalated the war in Afghanistan. The man caused disaster couldn't leave well enough alone and so as he was announcing an increase in troops he also announced an end to the war. The analysts say this second pronouncement is for "domestic consumption" but our Afghan partner, Hamid Karzai, didn't get the memo. He seems to think that this pronouncement could be a man caused disaster to his own neck. So, he's hedging his bet and he's playing footsy with our enemies all while pledging allegiance to us. Since the closest this man caused disaster came to war policy was an especially rowdy night at the local coffee shop in Hyde Park, he may not realize that it's much more difficult to win a war when our partner is simultaneously partnering up with our enemies.
Of course, our so called ally in Afghanistan must feel in good company. After all, lots of our allies must feel like enemies by the way they're treated by this man caused disaster. Our only true ally in the Middle East, and the only true Democracy, has been disrespected, strong armed, threatened, all while the same man caused disaster has reached to most of her enemies with deference due a nobel laureate. Then again, Israel is in good company. Alvaro Uribe may wind up being Colombia's George Washington, but in the view of this man caused disaster, he takes a second seat to leftist Daniel Ortega. Then, there's the Brits. They've been our partners in war and peace since they were our enemies in war and peace. Churchill, Thatcher, and Blair partnered with FDR, Reagan and Bush to free Western Europe, then Eastern Europe and finally Afghanistan and Iraq from tyranny. Those accomplishments are insignificant in the mind of this man caused disaster. First, he sent the bust of Churchill back, then he gave Gordon Brown some DVD's that didn't work, but finally he sided with a leftist over Britain in a dispute over the Falkland Islands.
Meanwhile, our enemies are stronger and more ferocious. North Korea was feeling bold and so they shot up a South Korean ship. Iran laughs every time a limp Security Council resolution against it is passed, and soon China will own everyone's debt. The answer from this man made disaster appears to be to ask for more limp Security Council resolutions and to borrow even more from China.
Then, there's the ultimate man caused disaster, the oil spill. No one blames the man caused disaster for causing this man caused disaster. Instead, this man caused disaster made that man caused disaster exponentially worse. How much worse...no one knows. Maybe, if this man caused disaster had scratched the numerous White House concerts, fundraisers, and golf outings, the other man caused disaster would have been under more control. Instead, the oil spews, the pelicans choke, and millions watch their livelihoods evaporate. One man caused disaster meets another man caused disaster.
A team of U.S. geologists and Pentagon officials has discovered vast mineral wealth in Afghanistan, conceivably enough to turn the scarred and impoverished country into one of the world's most lucrative mining centers, a senior military official told Fox News on Monday.
"There is stunning potential here," Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, told the New York Times in a report published Monday. "There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant."
Anyone that has seen Blood Diamonds knows that a vast amount of natural resources doesn't necessarily lead to wealth and prosperity. That said, Afghanistan has had nothing but poppy and it's in desperate need of natural resources that can be turned into wealth.
A door has been closed. But amid the roar, the creak of an opening window was faintly audible. This window, a gigantic deposit of natural gas called Leviathan, 6.5 times the size of Tel Aviv, was found, roughly 100 nautical miles from where the flotilla fiasco took place and well within Israel's extended territorial waters. This discovery may provide Israel with security in terms of its supply of electricity, turn it into an important natural gas exporter and provide a shot in the arm of some $300 billion over the life of the field - one-and-a-half times the national GDP - to the Israeli economy, already one of the most resilient in the world.
At the beginning of 2009, Israel made a major natural gas discovery that immediately made it a player in the natural gas market. This may be twice the size of that discovery. With Israel a major exporter of natural gas, the geopolitical environment in the Middle East.
Any day spent talking terrorism isn’t automatically a good one for the Obama administration, given the Republicans’ traditional edge on the issue among voters.
But debating Dick Cheney on terrorism? The Obama White House says it’s happy to do that anytime, as it did with Sunday’s split-screen standoff between Cheney and Vice President Joe Biden.
The dueling appearances, along with what is a clear administration strategy to play up its newly aggressive approach in Afghanistan, show a White House determined to project a posture of strength on national security and trying to gain the upper hand with Republicans who wish to portray Obama as weak.
This is the height of political incompetence, in my opinion. Taking on the Bush administration is a total loser for the Obama administration. That's because no one in the Bush administration has anything to lose.
When you attack your opponent two things happen. First, your opponents negatives go up. Second, your negatives go up. The Bush administration won't be running for office. Dick Cheney's approval ratings can go to zero and it won't matter. He's not running for office. His criticisms will be run in a loop against Biden's.
So, think about that. Biden's defense is that they did the same thing the Bush administration did in the Richard Reid case. So, the negatives will go up for the Bush administration's handling of the Richard Reid case. That's not going to help with the approvals of Obama's handling of Farouk.
Democrats think they are winning because a recent WAPO poll gave the Obama administration 56% approval on its handling of the GWOT. Of course, the GWOT is a much broader thing: Iraq, Afghanistan, drones, etc. The public is overwhelmingly against civilian trials for KSM and they are none too happy with the Obama administration's handling of Farouk.
Let's go back to the Dick Morris theory. It doesn't matter how the media presents an issue. All that matters is what issue they are talking about. For the Obama administration anything in relation to the handling of the Farouk case is a total loser for the Obama administration. So, why draw more attention to it by getting into a spat with Cheney.
It could take weeks to reclaim the Taliban stronghold of Marjah, a top Marine commander said Sunday as thousands of U.S. troops and Afghan soldiers fought for a second day in NATO's most ambitious effort yet to break the militants' grip on Afghanistan's dangerous south.
"That doesn't necessarily mean an intense gun battle, but it probably will be 30 days of clearing," Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson said. "I am more than cautiously optimistic that we will get it done before that."
This is a McChrystal operation but it follows standard counterinsurgency procedures. That means that the first step in the process is to clear the bad guys from all their spheres of influence.
The clearing portion will also likely be the easiest part of the process. Holding said territory, the second part of the process, will be toughest part. In Iraq, that meant going house to house in an urban environment. In Afghanistan, the regions are much more rural. It means searching all sorts of land and mountains. When we begin the process of holding territory, that will test the limits of how well this strategy transfers.
The final part of the strategy is the build portion and that's entirely economic. That will also prove extremely challenging since Afghanistan has never seen economic growth.
Here's part of an email from Dr. Chacko to a colleague in Afghanistan.
Dear Jon:
this is a voice from the past. You may remember me from the past at BAMC. I had the pleasure of speaking with your Exec - seems very nice.
I retired from the Army in 2001 and went to work at the Lahey Clinic for five years as the Chair of Radiology, then went to Boston University as the Vice-Chair of the Radiology Department. I was hoping to retire in Montana and run a small department for the University - but it did not pan out - they fired the CEO (who was a delightful person and actually had a great vision) - so four of us from the Army left and joined the VA. I was recruited to address the issues of corruption and fraud and bring the radiology department into some kind of order. This has been a dreadful mistake and all they really wanted was someone with military credentials to rubber stamp their fraud. Some of the perps hired a blogger to write some unbelievable trash about me on the internet. I am merely telling you this since I don't want you to blind-sided. The FBI is handling this part of the case. Long story short, I am leaving - however not without getting the Office of Special Counsel to come in to take corrective action with the VA. I would like to be able to serve in Afghanistan to help run a hospital as well as do some radiology. I am enclosing a copy of my CV for your perusal. In order for me to go as retired recalled - you would have to get several waivers - which might be difficult given my age (65+) and my weight (quite a lot). I would be happy to work as a civilian or with an NGO. I am fluent in Urdu and lived in a Muslim country all my childhood and part of my adult life. It is painful to see what happens to the veterans when they come back especially at the hospital where I have been working.
Please let me know how I can help.
Thank you Anna
Anna K. Chacko MD
That is a transcription sent from Dr. Anna Chacko at her personal hotmail email to Colonel Jonathon Jaffin of Medical Command or MEDCOM. MEDCOM's duties include recommending jobs in military hospitals.
In this email, Dr. Anna Chacko is reaching out to Colonel Jaffin in the hopes of landing a job running a hospital in Afghanistan. The substance of this email however is what makes Dr. Anna Chacko the compelling figure that she is. The blogger is me. Dr. Chacko claims that I have been hired by her enemies to write nasty things about her. That is not true. I have been hired by no one though I do have sources within the Pittsburgh VA. I have also not yet been contacted by the FBI in this matter. Knowing that Jaffin, like everyone, has access to Google, Chacko knows that he would invariably find my articles and this is a great way of spinning reality on its head.
For instance, Dr. Chacko says she spent five years working as head of radiology at Lahey Clinic. What she doesn't say was that she was carried out of that hospital upon her termination by security and all the while she screamed
Kiss my big Indian Ass
She also doesn't mention that she left the Boston University Medical Center following complaints of sexual harassment.
Dr. Chacko also claims that she wanted to retire and work in a quiet hospital in Montana but that the CEO that hired her was let go and so she moved on. Again, reality was spun on its head. The CEO she refers to is James Kiser. Dr. Chacko arrived at St. James Hospital in Butte, Montana in July of 2007. Kiser "resigned" in March of 2008.
James Kiser, president and chief executive officer of St. James Healthcare, resigned Friday “with a heavy heart.” Kiser, 45, said he is leaving his post because his presence may be perpetuating long-brewing animosity between the hospital and area doctors.
“I felt it was time for a change for myself and my family, but also for the hospital,” he said.
Kiser, who joined St. James in 2002, faced challenges uniting doctors and the hospital, who have disagreed over competing outpatient services.
In fact, his resignation was due in large part to the deteriorating profits of St. James. Those profits deteriorated due in large part to the deteriorating profits in the radiology department. That's the same radiology department run by Dr. Anna Chacko at the time. Furthermore, while Kiser left in March, Chacko didn't leave until September.
All four doctors working in the radiology department at St. James Healthcare in Butte have quit and are being replaced by a Helena outfit.
Dr. Anna Chacko, the hospital's director of radiology, told The Montana Standard she has accepted a job with the Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System in western Pennsylvania.
The hospital system cares for veterans from Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Maryland. Chacko will serve as chair and regional director of radiology.
At the time Chacko left, the radiology department at St. James was deep in red. They are now on the brink of defaulting on millions of dollars of radiology equipment she purchased. All of this, of course, wasn't mentioned in the email.
As for her time in the Pittsburgh VA, I don't know if she was hired on to "root out corruption". Given her colorful past, that would be rather ironic. I do know, however, that not once but twice an administrative investigative board heard testimony regarding her behavior and twice such a board recommended she be removed. Dr. Chacko has continually claimed that she was targeted because she was attempting to root out corruption. In fact, that's what Chacko convinced Congressman Miller in the spring last year because that's what he said to General Shinseki in this letter.
Much like in this situation, Dr. Chacko spun reality on its head to Congressman Brad Miller and as a result he sent that letter to General Shinseki. It is her ability to spin reality on its head that makes her endlessly fascinating to me. Beyond that, she is now a national security threat. Under no circumstance can she be allowed to enter the theater in Afghanistan. I can only imagine what she might do there. Soldiers lives will be put in danger if somehow the proper vetting isn't done and she is given the proper waivers and given work there. The revelation of this email gives this story significantly more urgency.
The suicide bomber who killed seven CIA operatives in Afghanistan last week was a Jordanian informant who lured intelligence officers into a trap by promising new information about al-Qaeda's top leadership, former U.S. government officials said Monday.
Here's the story in a nutshell. Jordanian intelligence recruited this individual to infiltrate Al Qaeda. The CIA began to work with him. He gained their trust. So, he was able to bypass security in Afghanistan. He walked into an area in which 7 CIA members were located and blew himself up. He was in fact an Al Qaeda double agent.
The ramifications are huge. First, these were seven top CIA agents. They're dead. Second, someone in the Jordanian intelligence recruited them and so they vetted them. What does this do to our relationship with them? Third, this was some plot. This guy passes himself off as an informant all while actually working with Al Qaeda.
We're all fixated on the airport plot meanwhile, this guy infiltrates the CIA and kills seven. Who knows how much intelligence he gave to Al Qaeda. Yet, this story is buried while we hyperanalyze the airport bombing.
The head of the United Nations mission to Afghanistan criticized the Afghan parliament's decision to reject a majority of President Hamid Karzai's cabinet nominees, citing concerns that it could delay the formation of a new government.
The Parliament voted to reject 17 out of Mr. Karzai's 24 nominations. Among those is Ismail Khan, a controversial warlord who had been nominated as energy minister. Other rejected nominees included the ministers of justice, commerce, economy and public health.
Kai Eide, the top U.N. chief in the country, said Sunday that the decision constituted a "setback" and a "distraction," which could hamper international efforts to reform, in a timely fashion, a government often accused of corruption. On Tuesday, the Afghan parliament will start a 45-day recess, meaning that up to two months could pass before a new government is installed.
This puts a wrench into our own Afghan policy but this is what happens when the elections are tainted. It's also an exercise of power by a parliament that has been viewed my many as little more than a rubber stamp.
President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech gave conservatives, or dare I say neoconservatives, plenty to love.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
...
Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
...
And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.
Without a doubt, sprinkled into his Nobel Peace Prize speech were shots at the previous administration and tacit acknowledgements to the Euro liberals about America's past moral failings. Still, the general tenor of the speech was a very vigorous defense of a muscular foreign policy.
The speech came within a week of the President's announcement that he would send more troops to Afghanistan. The speech was applauded by no less than Newt Gingrich, who called it Obama's best, and Sarah Palin. Meanwhile, Neoconservative stalwarts William Kristol and Fred Kagan had this to say following the announcement of Obama's Afghanistan strategy.
Obama's decision, and the speech in which it was announced, were not flawless. The president should have met his commander's full request for forces. He should not have announced a deadline for the start of the withdrawal of U.S. forces. He should have committed to a specific and significant increase in the size of the Afghan National Security Forces. He should also have explained more clearly the relationship between defeating the Taliban and defeating al Qaeda, the significance of such a victory, and the reasons his Afghan strategy can succeed. The secretaries of defense and state, as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made those arguments far more compellingly in subsequent congressional testimony than the president did at West Point.
We shouldn't miss the forest for the trees, however. When all the rhetorical and other problems are stripped away, the fact remains that Obama has, in his first year in office, committed to doubling our forces in Afghanistan and embraced our mission there. Indeed, the plan the president announced on Tuesday features a commendably rapid deployment of reinforcements to the theater, with most of the surge forces arriving over the course of this winter, allowing them to be in position before the enemy's traditional fighting season begins.
In fact, the Nobel Peace Prize speech moved Bill Kristol to say this.
There was a fair amount for Bush Doctrine-supporters, American-exceptionalist patriots, and neocon warmongers to like in Obama's Oslo speech. He sounded hardheaded and pro-American, certainly by contrast with his previous rhetorical forays abroad--his utopian world-without-nuclear-weapons remarks in Prague in April or his apologetic speech to the Muslim world in Cairo two months later.
In Oslo, Obama began "by acknowledging a hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes." The implication of that? "There will be times when nations--acting individually or in concert--will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."
Note that "acting individually." Despite much talk elsewhere in the speech about the international community acting together, Obama held open the possibility that nations will have to act alone and will be morally justified in doing so.
Similarly, despite his professed admiration for Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., Obama explicitly said, "as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone." Indeed, Obama went on implicitly to rebuke Gandhi: "A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies."
Kristol goes on to speculate if the Oslo speech was a precursor to a strike on Iran.
One thing that was underreported was the reaction to Obama in Europe following this speech. The Nobel Peace Prize speech was by far the most bellicose acceptance speech for the Nobel PEACE Prize that I can think of. Yet, there was little if any criticism of its bellicosity. In fact, the general reaction was positive.
Obama has in fact set things up to lead the world into aggressive action against Iran if that's what he chooses to do. His foreign policy has slowly but surely moved away from the naive leftist fantasy that it started out as to a much more realistic one.
It's true that Obama continues to insist on closing GITMO and trying KSM et al in country is disastrous. At the same time, Obama has effectively continued Bush's Iraq policy. He's followed a similar strategy in Afghanistan. If the Nobel Peace Prize speech is any indication, he may be moving to a muscular policy toward Iran as well.
The beauty is that if that's what he chooses he's in fact set himself up perfectly. The Europeans are enthralled with Obama. Only President Barack Obama could convince the Europeans to take a muscular stance against Iran. That doesn't necessarily mean a rush to war. In fact, he could lead the charge against serious sanctions, a Naval blockade, removal of ambassadors, and any other meaningful act against that nation. He set out a muscular foreign policy in Oslo and the Europeans didn't merely not criticize but applauded.
Obama can in fact demand such a policy of the Europeans and he's about the only person capable of leading it. It's too early to tell if Obama's policy real has moderated on foreign policy. There is however plenty for those like me to like lately.
There is always an X factor in any presidency. That is that the office itself changes and evolves the holder. It's very possible that the office has shown President Obama that the policies he was in favor of when a candidate are untennable and the office is forcing Obama to moderate. It's something to watch as his own presidency evolves.
Most people likely don't know it but our Congress sets a debt limit. The reason most don't know it is that Congress on both sides simply raise it each and every time our actual debt nears the limit and that's what's happening again.
The U.S. House of Representatives will combine legislation to increase the debt limit with a bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Thursday.
The tactic greatly increases the legislation's chances of clearing Congress before the Treasury Department runs into the current limit of $12.1 trillion.
"We have already raised it in the House but we need to have a vehicle so that the Senate can vote on it, and it is our intention to have something on the Department of Defense bill next week," Pelosi said at a news conference.
The debt and deficit have become a much bigger focus since President Obama took the proverbial gloves off regarding spending. As such, Pelosi will combine this limit with other spending on Afghanistan to provide cover to Dems who know that this vote will be unpopular.
The president's Afghanistan time line is being questioned by all quarters. The British Defense Secretary is openly questioning the policy.
Tensions between Britain and America over the war in Afghanistan erupted into the open yesterday as the Defence Secretary questioned President Obama’s decision to put a date on the start of US troop withdrawals.
In an interview with The Times, Bob Ainsworth said that the Government would not follow Washington’s promise to start pulling out in 2011. “You can’t put a time on it. You’ve got to look at conditions,” he said.
He accepted that the public would not tolerate the war “going on for ever”, but insisted there was no deadline for withdrawal. “Nobody is talking about a drawdown, we are talking about bringing more in there . . . but we are talking about transition.” He said that it would be wrong to set a date for the start of troop reductions.
We already know about the criticism from John McCain.
Sen. John McCain says President Barack Obama's announcement that U.S. troops will begin to leave Afghanistan in July 2011 sends the wrong message to the Taliban and has confused countries in the region.
The Arizona Republican says the U.S. can make significant progress in Afghanistan in the next 12 months to 18 months. But he says the U.S. should be signaling that it will pull its troops from that country once it has won and broken the Taliban's will.
It's also members of his chain of command that are giving not so subtle hints that the timeline has little meaning. First, the General of Centcom, General David Petraeus, said the president acknowledged to him the success of the surge in Iraq. That's something the president has never acknowledged in public.
President Obama did acknowledge the success of the surge in Iraq and used some of its lessons to develop a plan in Afghanistan, the head of Central Command said Sunday.
Petraeus also made it clear that this withdrawal would only be conditions based.
"There is undeniably some tension between" announcing a surge and a withdrawal, Petraeus said. "But ... this will be conditions-based, responsible and a transition starting, but not a race to the exits."
Petraeus was against setting timelines in Iraq. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Gates warned that the nation should prepare itself for a 2-4 year commitment of significant troops in Afghanistan.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says Americans should expect a significant U.S. military presence in Afghanistan for two years to four years more.
Just as in Iraq, the U.S. eventually will turn over provinces to local security forces, allowing the United States to bring the number of troops down steadily, according to Gates, who appeared on three Sunday talk shows with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to discuss President Barack Obama's new Afghan war plan.
It should be clear now that this timeline has been so watered down that it is meaningless. It was thrown out there to appease his base. Instead, the much more significant timeline will be a year from now. That's when the administration will assess the current strategy. By then, there will need to be some tangible progress or it's very possible that there will be pressure to accept defeat.
Yesterday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the President's Afghanistan policy, and we got a preview of the way things will likely go for him going forward. Obama's policy was attacked from both sides. Carl Levin of Michigan was the chief attacker of the president from the left and John McCain was the chief attacker of the president from the right.
Levin's main problem was extremely techical though it follows to a larger mantra of the left. According to Levin, the Obama plan requires that in the hold portion of the operation, (remember that this will still be Petraeus style counter insurgency of clear, hold, and build) that one American troop would be available for every three Afghan troops. Yet, according to Levin, there simply aren't enough trained Afghan troops to accomplish this. As such, Levin is very concerned about sending thirty thousand additional troops. In Levin's view, this operation needs to be lead by the Afghans not the Americans.
The left has long been calling for us to turn this operation into an advisory/training mission primarily. In that we build the Afghan military into as big and as efficient a fighting force as quickly as possible and leave our soldiers in the background so that the take on as few casualties as possible. (there is the extreme left that wants to pull out entirely as well)
The back and forth between Levin, Mullen and Gates was even more technical and ultimately Mullen put it best when he said that for each neighborhood things would be unique. So, it's not entirely clear if the president's goal of one American troop for three Afghans can or cannot be accomplished. What's more important is that the left has no use for any escalation and they will beat to death any and all available technicalities to show that the "escalation" is not worth it.
Meanwhile, McCain was fixated on the idea that Obama not only called for a date certain to begin the draw down but that this date certain would be "conditions based". McCain was almost a broken record in that the two aren't compatible. In reality, the president has shown over and over that deadlines and timelines are things he almost never keeps himself to. We were supposed to have health care reform by now. GITMO was supposed to be closed in January. So to are we supposed to draw down in July of 2011. It's likely as meaningless as all his timelines.
That's the point that Bill O'Reilly made last night. He's right but there's a larger point. First, if a president constantly sets timelines that aren't followed that's a problem. Second, and more germane here, if he's setting timelines before the mission starts, how committed to victory can he be? It's his lack of commitment to victory that you will see Conservatives hammer at ad nauseum.
On a political level, this Afghan policy is a disaster. He gave everyone a little to like and something to hate much more. Sure, the liberals love the idea of a timeline for withdrawal, but they want to do it now. They hate the escalation much more than a timeline they know he won't follow anyway. Sure, the conservatives love that Obama decided to largely go with the McChrystal/Petraeus counter insurgency strategy, but they don't believe he's committed to winning. Without that commitment, the conservatives don't feel any strategy would work.
So, what you're going to see is a steady stream of criticism from all sides on a range of issues on Afghanistan and given that he wants to pass health care, such a blazing criticism only makes that even harder.
The speech was actually a bit dull and the headlines will be the surge in troops. The president has announced a surge in troops of thirty thousand new troops. Those troops will be in country for eighteen months and then they will begin to be drawn down. Still, that will be conditions based. So, it's not entirely clear if conditions will be the driving force or if the time line will be the driving force.
The three pillars of the strategy are as follows. First, there will be a surge in troops that will try and bring security to the areas of Afghanistan that are unsecure. Second, it is working with the Afghan government to root out corruption and incompetence. Third, it is working with Pakistan so that Al Qaeda doesn't take root there.
The problem with the speech is that often he would set up a stark scenario and then say that we need to get out by 2011. The president made it clear that if Al Qaeda takes hold in Afghanistan that this will lead to another attack. Yet, he also says that we will try and get out by 2011 and one reason is that our economy is sputtering. If this is a matter of life and death, how is our economy a factor in when we leave. I, personally, didn't get the feeling that he wants to win and will refuse to accept any other outcome.
This speech was full of equivocation. It wasn't a speech of someone determined to win. It was the speech of someone that wants to try to win. In order to win a war, there must be 110% commitment from everyone involved. This president convinced no one that he is 110% committed to winning. He didn't give the full contingent of troops asked for. He set a timetable though he said it was conditions based. He talked about cost and the economy along with the necessity of war. He talked about all sorts of things in the speech and victory was one thing I heard very little.
Going into the speech tonight, the President has put himself into a position that is so untennable it's at this point nearly impossible to see how he can get out of it. At this point, there's no doubt that the president will ask for more troops tonight.
That will tick off the left which is now growing ever more impatient with him. It's still yet unclear if he can even sell more troops to get funding but even if he does, it will come at a major price politically. The conservatives will back him but they aren't going to be happy unless he gives McChrystal all the troops he asked for. As such, he will likely please no one with his decision.
At the same time he is selling this, he will also have to maneuver on health care. That's even less popular than an escalation of troops in Afghanistan. On top of this, liberals will already have to swallow more Afghan troops. So, what if there's no public option in health care? Are they really going to swallow that as well? Yet, it seems clear that the bill won't pass in the Senate with the public option. So, what's he to do?
Meanwhile, ACORN is continuing to embarrass him. It's stunning that Holder would come out and say that ACORN would get paid for back contracts. The optics on that look awful. Unemployment is past ten percent. Our deficit is north of $1.5 trillion. His approval rating is in the high 40's and dropping.
Carl Cameron said yesterday that in candor Democratic lawmakers are now targetting Valentine's Day for passing health care reform. The country simply can't take another two months of this. I said yesterday I was sick and tired of the debate and I don't think I'm alone. The approval for the bill is low and dropping and forcing the country to listen to it for another three months will only make it worse. As such, either the president passes nothing or passes something deeply unpopular.
At the same time, he's going to escalate a deeply unpopular war policy. Even if it ultimately works out, it will be a year or more before the public sees progress. In the middle of it all, it doesn't seem as though he can actually get Congressional approval for either let alone both. Already, some of the Democratic leadership have assumed their own role as Commander in Chief. They are making demands for how the war effort will go in order to back funding it. His base is turning on him just at the time he'll have to sell health care reform sans the public option.
Just think about it. Soon, there will be no group all that happy with the president. Conservatives are already in ODS mode. Moderates have been leaving for months. Now, it's the liberals that are beginning to turn and on the two main issues of the day, they're about to be disappointed.
It is all a result of the president totally misreading the mood of the country, the ideological make up of the Congress, and the so called mandate he received in 2008. He's trying to govern as a liberal, at least certainly on domestic issues, in a center right country. The make up of the Congress is center right even though it's more Democrat than Republican. The country didn't want a massive expansion of government and debt.
For him to succeed, he'll have to reinvent himself as a moderate. Health care reform could pass but it would have to be totally transformed into a moderate reform package. To do that, he'll have to show plenty of political acumen and courage. Neither of which he's ever shown in his career. Soon, he'll have no choice. He's created a political dynamic that is almost impossible to stop at this point. That dynamic will lead to huge shifts in 2010. He doesn't have the votes to govern as a liberal now. He certainly won't have them then.
The president is well on his way to becoming the fastest president to reach 30% approval ratings. Nothing is working. Worse yet, he's set himself up to make things even worse. He's about to alienate the left on Afghanistan without really appeasing the right or middle either. Health care is in chaos. The economy is in tatters. Our deficit is enormous, and blaming Bush no longer works. Like I said, the President is F*(ked.
In an interview for Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital With Al Hunt," the senator suggests funding additional troops with an "additional income tax to the upper brackets, folks earning more than $200,000 or $250,000."
The problem, of course, is that President Obama already wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthiest. That would put them at 39.6%. Then, Harry Reid wants to add a sur tax on the really wealthy to pay for health care reform. President Obama wants to remove tax credits for the rich only. Now, the Democrats want to pay for the war by taxing the rich.
The rich aren't stupid and their pockets aren't endless. You can't continue to tax them for every spending program you come up with. The problem here is that the Democrats have a lot of spending programs they want to implement. Those cost money. They don't want to tax anyone but the rich. You can go to that well once, maybe twice, but after that the well is dry.
In the real world, the so called rich have options. They usually figure out a way to avoid paying taxes. That's especially true when the taxes are punishing. After the Democrats are done, the so called rich will have 60% of their income taken away in some states, like Cali and New York where the income tax approaches 10%. No one will pay that willingly. They will avoid it at all costs.
This latest scheme will wind up being as effective as all tax the rich schemes, not very. In fact, it isn't really all that effective politically either. People aren't stupid. They can see that when politicians get addicted to spending, it's their own taxes that are next. Democrats can't hide from what they are, tax and spend. They're coming for your taxes soon.
There's a leak from the White House. It appears that President Obama is unhappy with any of the war plans so far produced.
After months of deliberating, President Obama opted not to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
That stance comes in the midst of forceful reservations about a possible troop buildup from the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, according to a second top administration official
The president is looking for ways to improve the political situation before committing to a troop increase. Now, try and put this into perspective. The president has scant military and foreign policy experience and he's looked all the military options on the table suggested to him by generals and other military experts and decided he doesn't like any of them.
Here's the problem for the president. No matter what path he chooses it will be a path filled with pitfalls. The president is looking for a plan that simply doesn't exist. Even in the best of circumstances, war plans are filled with pitfalls. We are under much less than ideal circumstances in Afghanistan. The president is looking for ideal where there is chaos.
The president also wants to look at ways to improve the political situation. All third world countries have terribly corrupt governments. That's the main reason that they are third world. This government will be terribly corrupt for years, decades, and maybe even centuries. That's what happens in the third world. That's one of the reasons that strong men flourish in third worlds. The people get sick of the corruption and that vacuum gives a strong man the opportunity to take over.
Plans must take all this into account. They must also account for reality. The idea that Hamid Karzai will suddenly root out corruption is naive and unrealistic. If we provide a plan that tamps down the violence, there will be a decrease in the corruption. It will give Karzai an opportunity to exert more control. President Obama is expecting miracles when he needs to expect reality. The Iraqi government was similarly hapless and corrupt, and then we cut the violence exponentially and what followed was a significantly more effective government.
Let's make no mistake. No one will mistake Nuri Al Maliki for Thomas Jefferson any time soon. There's still plenty of problems in the Iraqi government, society, and overall. Still, once the violence was tamped down, everything else followed. The same thing can happen in Afghanistan. President Obama must begin to realize that forty year military folks know more about military strategy than he does. He must start being realistic and make decisions based on what is happening not what he'd like to happen.
Please note. I welcome any and all comments from any political perspective. I will not stand or approve any swearing, and personal attacks will likely also not be approved.
