During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama stated that Iran had a vital role to play in the future of Afghanistan. Hence, it should come as no surprise that Afghanistan's Vice-President, Marshal Mohammad Qasim Fahim, met with both the Iranian President and Defense Minister over the weekend.
Mr. Fahim toured Iran's Defense Ministry Abilities exhibition on Saturday and held talks with Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi, where he thanked Iran for its support of the Afghan nation and called for increased cooperation, particularly in the area of defense.
Fahim decribed Iran’s role in helping to restore security to Afghanistan as 'Excellent', and added that he expected to see the development of bilateral relations in all fields during the construction era of Afghanistan.
Defense Minister Vahidi, for his part, praised Afghan martyrs, who died for freedom of their own country. The Defense Minister also announced Iran's readiness to help Afghanistan strengthen its army, and noted that Iranian-Afghan relations are strategic.
During his meeting with President Ahmadinejad, Mr. Fahim praised Iran as a “powerful state” in the region, and added that Iran could play a major role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and help restore peace and stability to the war torn nation.
Clearly, Barack Obama's plans for the bolstering of ties between Iran and Afghanistan are forging ahead, just as he had envisioned.
As the year 2010 comes to a close, it is worthy to note some of the foreign policy accomplishments which President Obama has achieved during his short tenure in office.
1) The START treaty, Obama's crowning achievement.
So great was this achievement that a prominent Russian official conceded that: "If one reads the text of the document [of the START treaty] carefully, then it becomes clear that Americans will really have to reduce the number of [nuclear] warheads, while if we [Russia] want to reach the levels defined by the document, will actually have to increase the amount of warheads."
Amazing!
2) Russia acquiesced to Obama's wishes and agreed to impose sanctions on Iran. So great was this feat that Russian President Dimitry Medvedev, during a meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad several weeks ago, issued a statement saying that "following the" adoption of the UN "sanctions resolution", certain countries "sought to intensify sanctions against Iran, to which Russia strongly opposed and took stances against."
The Russian President added: "Russia seeks to improve its political, economic and even military ties with Iran."
Indeed, Russia is not only a major facilitator of Iran's nuclear program, it is also providing Iran with various kinds of armament and weaponry - thanks to President Obama's unparalleled diplomatic prowess.
According to President Obama's close ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Russia has also agreed to loan Venezuela $4 billion to buy Russian military hardware. What's more, Russia recently sold Venezuela nearly 2,000 advanced, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles capable of hitting aircraft as high as 19,000 feet.
"Equally and perhaps more alarming," says Mike McDaniel, "is an October agreement between Iran and Venezuela. The agreement establishes a joint ground-to-ground missile base on Venezuelan soil and calls for the sharing of missile technology and the training of technicians and officers..."
These weapons gives "Venezuela the ability to strike targets throughout South and Central America and throughout the U.S."
Without Barack Obama's "reset button", none of this could have come about. Simply incredible!
3) Ever since Barack Obama set foot in the Oval Office and began to both reestablish U.S. diplomatic ties with Syria and ignore Syrian intransigence, the Syrians have begun to re-exert their influence in Lebanon. Consequently, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who for years blamed Syria for his father's death, changed his tune several months ago and asserted that it was a mistake to accuse Syria of killing his father. Hariri is now bowing before the altar of Bashar Assad and Hassan Nasrallah. Were it not for Barack Obama's diplomatic skills, could this rapprochement, between once-forsworn enemies, have come to fruition?
Incredible!
I could go on and on, listing all of Obama's diplomatic successes. But suffice it to say that no other US President in the annals of American history has ever come close to matching Barack Obama's foreign policy achievements.
What can I say? Obama is truly unique, he's one of a kind, and he deserves to win the Nobel Piece Prize again - and again - and again - each and every year - from now until the end of time.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Death Panel resurrected by Obama - in stealth fashion
The New York Times is reporting that "starting Jan. 1, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment."
Democrats in 2009 dropped a similar proposal from the health care reform bill due to Republican opposition. The Obama administration, however, will achieve the same goal, starting Jan. 1, "through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress."
According to the Times, Democratic lawmakers are keeping mum about the new policy for fear of provoking another furor like the one that erupted last year during the congressional health care reform debate. They are also urging their supporters not to publicize the new policy, saying that, thus far, they've been fortunate that the aforementioned policy has received scant press coverage.
According to the Times, the new policy is included "in a huge Medicare regulation setting payment rates for thousands of services including arthroscopy, mastectomy and X-rays."
The Times goes on to say that the rule was issued by Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services...
Mr. Berwick has been quoted as saying that “using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault."
In an interview with the New York Times in April of 2009, President Obama expressed concern over the huge costs of end-of-life care, saying: "I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care... is what you do around things like end-of-life care... I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here!"
Democrats in 2009 dropped a similar proposal from the health care reform bill due to Republican opposition. The Obama administration, however, will achieve the same goal, starting Jan. 1, "through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress."
According to the Times, Democratic lawmakers are keeping mum about the new policy for fear of provoking another furor like the one that erupted last year during the congressional health care reform debate. They are also urging their supporters not to publicize the new policy, saying that, thus far, they've been fortunate that the aforementioned policy has received scant press coverage.
According to the Times, the new policy is included "in a huge Medicare regulation setting payment rates for thousands of services including arthroscopy, mastectomy and X-rays."
The Times goes on to say that the rule was issued by Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services...
Mr. Berwick has been quoted as saying that “using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault."
In an interview with the New York Times in April of 2009, President Obama expressed concern over the huge costs of end-of-life care, saying: "I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care... is what you do around things like end-of-life care... I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here!"
Lavrov: START treaty links offensive weapons to defensive weapons
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the Russian Parliament on Friday that the text of the new START treaty "unambiguously" links strategic-offensive weapons to defensive weapons, and that the creation of a global missile defense shield by the US would allow the Russians to withdraw from the treaty. This runs contrary to statements made by both the White House and Senate Democrats, who've asserted that no such link exists:
Related Posts: Lavrov: Link between offensive and defensive weapons in START treaty preamble is binding
Related Posts: Lavrov: Link between offensive and defensive weapons in START treaty preamble is binding
Russian lawmaker: Russia able to up nuclear arms potential after new START treaty
Friday, December 24, 2010
Ahmadinejad calls UN Security Council 'political retards'
From Sify News :
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the member states of the UN Security Council were 'political retards' for still believing in the effectiveness of sanctions, the news agency ILNA reported Friday.
'The officials of those countries who in the third millennium still think sanctions are an effective means are politically retarded,' the ILNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a visit to Istanbul...
Ahmadinejad claimed, as he has previously, that the UN sanctions have no effect as neither the United States nor Europe has any major role in the Iranian economy.
Lavrov: Link between offensive and defensive weapons in START treaty preamble is binding
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov Friday said that language in the new START treaty's preamble linking strategic offensive and defensive weapons is legally binding. The White House and Senate Democrats earlier this week reassured Republican lawmakers that the text was non binding. Several Republican Senators, however, were not satisfied with the Democrats' vacuous reassurances and they 'attached a non-binding amendment to to the resolution of ratification technical document to recommit Washington to deploying a missile defense system.
Mr. Lavrov on Friday said that Russia was "absolutely" opposed to any additions to the treaty that rejected a link between missile defense and strategic arms.
"We are absolutely not in agreement with this. This is an arbitrary interpretation of the principles of international law," he told the Russian lower house of parliament.
"The Senate's resolution claims that the treaty does not apply to new kinds of non-nuclear strategic weapons that could be developed in the future. But this is not true," he said.
"There are a few problems," he said. One of the main ones being the assertion contained in this statement that the correlation between strategic offensive and defensive weapons, reflected in the treaty, is not legally binding for the US and Russia because it is stipulated in the preamble. This thesis cannot be defended by lawyers."
Russia's State Duma passed the treaty ratification bill in the first of three readings on Friday, but delayed the other two readings and postponed final ratification of the treaty until January to allow Russian lawmakers additional time to counter the non-binding amendments which Republicans recently inserted into the treaty.
Mr. Lavrov on Friday said that Russia was "absolutely" opposed to any additions to the treaty that rejected a link between missile defense and strategic arms.
"We are absolutely not in agreement with this. This is an arbitrary interpretation of the principles of international law," he told the Russian lower house of parliament.
"The Senate's resolution claims that the treaty does not apply to new kinds of non-nuclear strategic weapons that could be developed in the future. But this is not true," he said.
"There are a few problems," he said. One of the main ones being the assertion contained in this statement that the correlation between strategic offensive and defensive weapons, reflected in the treaty, is not legally binding for the US and Russia because it is stipulated in the preamble. This thesis cannot be defended by lawyers."
Russia's State Duma passed the treaty ratification bill in the first of three readings on Friday, but delayed the other two readings and postponed final ratification of the treaty until January to allow Russian lawmakers additional time to counter the non-binding amendments which Republicans recently inserted into the treaty.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Iranian soldier captured in Afghanistan
From the AFP:
A member of the elite al-Quds force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard has been captured in southern Afghanistan accused of cross-border weapons smuggling, international forces said Friday.
The man, described as a "key Taliban weapons facilitator", was captured Saturday in Zhari district, Kandahar province...
He was targeted "for facilitating the movement of weapons between Iran and Kandahar through Nimroz province," a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said...
"The now-detained man was considered a Kandahar-based weapons facilitator with direct ties to other Taliban leaders in the province," the ISAF spokesman added in a statement...
Kabul has insisted that Iran, as a neighbouring country, has a legitimate concern in helping the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan... [Ed. note: Obama has said this many times in the past. Sigh...]...
British newspaper The Times reported Friday that Iran has released a string of senior Al-Qaeda militants from custody so they can help the network rebuild in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas.
The newspaper quoted anonymous Pakistani and Middle Eastern officials accusing Iran of giving covert support to the Islamist militants, often through the Revolutionary Guards...
Afghanistan's deputy commerce minister Mohammad Sharif Sharifi said this week that Iran was preventing 1,600 fuel tankers from crossing into Afghanistan because Tehran believed they would supply foreign troops.
Southern Afghanistan -- particularly the provinces of Helmand and Kandahar, where the Iranian was captured -- is seen as the Taliban's home turf and is at the heart of the war in Afghanistan between international forces and the Islamist militants...
Gibbs: 'Obama not thinking about 2012'?
"I think the president, if he were here, would tell you that he spends next to no time thinking about his reelection in 2012 and spends his time with his team here working on how to strengthen our economic recovery."
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs - press briefing, September 21, 2010
"If he has, he hasn’t told me."
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, during a press briefing - October 14, 2010 - responding to a reporter's question about whether the President has begun contemplating his reelection in 2012
From the New York Times - December 23, 2010:
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, during a press briefing briefing, September 21, 2010
If he has, he hasn’t told me."
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, during a press briefing - October 14, 2010 - responding to a reporter's question about whether the President has begun contemplating his reelection in 2012
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs - press briefing, September 21, 2010
"If he has, he hasn’t told me."
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, during a press briefing - October 14, 2010 - responding to a reporter's question about whether the President has begun contemplating his reelection in 2012
From the New York Times - December 23, 2010:
President Obama is planning the first major reorganization of his administration, preparing to shuffle several positions in the West Wing as he tries to fortify his political team for the realities of divided government and his own re-election..."I think the president, if he were here, would tell you that he spends next to no time thinking about his reelection in 2012 and spends his time with his team here working on how to strengthen our economic recovery."
White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs will probably either become a senior adviser to the president or work outside the White House, defending Mr. Obama on television and beginning to define the field of 2012 Republican presidential candidates...
Some [aids] will be dispatched to Chicago, where the re-election effort is scheduled to be well under way by the spring, with the fund-raising, political and communications staff among the first to report for duty.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, during a press briefing briefing, September 21, 2010
If he has, he hasn’t told me."
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, during a press briefing - October 14, 2010 - responding to a reporter's question about whether the President has begun contemplating his reelection in 2012
Russian lawmaker: Russia able to up nuclear arms potential after new START treaty
The Russians are celebrating their victory!:
My fellow Russian comrades, enjoy your Christmas present - compliments of Chairman Obama!
Russia will be able to increase its nuclear arms potential after a new arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia is ratified, a top Russian senator said on Friday.Ah, yes, the sweet taste of victory!
"If one reads the text of the document carefully then it becomes clear that Americans will really have to reduce the number of [nuclear] warheads, while if we [Russia] want to reach the levels defined by the document, will actually have to increase the amount of warheads," Mikhail Margelov, the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Federation Council, said in an interview with TVTc television channel.
My fellow Russian comrades, enjoy your Christmas present - compliments of Chairman Obama!
Russian lawmakers in no hurry to ratify START treaty
President Obama and Democratic lawmakers refused to postpone a vote on ratification of the new START treaty until January of next year, citing the urgent need to reset US/Russian relations without delay. However, while some Russian officials have indicated that the new treaty could be ratified in the the Russian Parliament as early as Friday, others have suggested that Russian lawmakers, unlike their Democratic counterparts in the US Congress, are in no hurry to ratify the treaty:
However, prior to approving the treaty, Republican lawmakers - who are acutely aware of both the President's propensity to capitulate to the Russians and his longing to fulfill their every desire - 'attached non-binding amendments to the resolution of ratification technical document to recommit Washington to deploying a missile defense system, modernizing its nuclear arsenal, and seek new talks with Russia on curbing tactical nuclear weapons.'
Of course, a non-binding amendment recommitting Washington to deploy a missile defense system is of little significance as long as the Russians have the preamble to lean on. Nevertheless, some Russian parliamentarians are unhappy with the aforementioned amendments, and unlike their US counterparts [Sen. Kerry and company], they feel they need additional time to study the treaty before voting on it. Which is why [Russian MP] Konstantin Kosachev said that, although the treaty will be debated in the parliament in the first reading on December 24, MPs will go on their New Year holiday to re-convene after January10 [to futher discuss the treaty].
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also suggested that Moscow would need additional time to study the treaty:
Nevertheless, I believe that Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev will see to it that the treaty is ratified on Friday, for ultimately the treaty not only benefits them and their security needs, it also gives Russia a much needed edge over the US. Additionaly, I do not believe that Mr. Medvedev and Mr. Putin are prepared to leave Obama hanging out to dry - not right now, not after he just handed them a major victory.
At a later date in time, however, they will indeed leave him hanging, and, while they're watching him cling to the laundry line they'll have a few beers, and they'll laugh, and they'll scoff.
And the former KGB bigwig and his disciple will live happily ever after.
Russian lawmakers need more time to examine a U.S. resolution ratifying the START nuclear arms reduction treaty before approving it, a senior MP said on Thursday, crushing hopes for a swift ratification in 2010...Jon Kyl and other Republicans in the senate expressed concerns over various aspects of the treaty. Of primary concern to Mr. Kyl is the language in the treaty's preamble that links offensive nuclear weapons to defensive systems, which could severely restrict US missile defense. Sen. John Kerry rebuffed Mr. Kyl's claims and insisted the text in the preamble was non-binding and that, regardless of how the Russians interpret the language, everything would be just fine.
"The ratification resolution as it was voted for by the U.S. Senate contains a large number of interpretations which require study and response from the Russian lawmakers," Konstantin Kosachev said.
Kosachev said the treaty will be debated in the State Duma lower house of parliament in the first reading on December 24 at the last plenary session this year, but then the MPs will go on their New Year holiday to re-convene after January10...
But analysts and arms control experts said Russian approval was all but certain.
"It will now be ratified for sure," veteran Soviet diplomat and arms treaty negotiator Roland Timerbayev told Reuters...
"If the Kremlin [i.e. Medvedev and Putin] wants do to it as quickly as possible then it can be done in one day," Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, told Reuters.
However, prior to approving the treaty, Republican lawmakers - who are acutely aware of both the President's propensity to capitulate to the Russians and his longing to fulfill their every desire - 'attached non-binding amendments to the resolution of ratification technical document to recommit Washington to deploying a missile defense system, modernizing its nuclear arsenal, and seek new talks with Russia on curbing tactical nuclear weapons.'
Of course, a non-binding amendment recommitting Washington to deploy a missile defense system is of little significance as long as the Russians have the preamble to lean on. Nevertheless, some Russian parliamentarians are unhappy with the aforementioned amendments, and unlike their US counterparts [Sen. Kerry and company], they feel they need additional time to study the treaty before voting on it. Which is why [Russian MP] Konstantin Kosachev said that, although the treaty will be debated in the parliament in the first reading on December 24, MPs will go on their New Year holiday to re-convene after January10 [to futher discuss the treaty].
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also suggested that Moscow would need additional time to study the treaty:
Lavrov said that... the text of the resolution had been 'somehow amended compared to the initial draft.'However, while Russian lawmakers may view the text of the treaty as a matter of national security, Sen. Kerry and his colleagues believe the text is nothing more than a trivial matter, an insignificant thorn in the backside that mustn't interfere with the Democrats' political aspirations and their claim to victory.
'The ratification resolution ... is a complex document that must be deeply studied,' he said.
'The ministry and the parliament, we need some time to study the documents of the US ratification.'...
A senior Russian MP had said earlier on Wednesday that the Russian lower house could pass the treaty before the end of the year but was more cautious following the US ratification.
'We must carry out a deep analysis of the text and its commentaries because this is a matter of national security,' said Leonid Slutsky, the deputy chairman of the the State Duma's foreign affairs committee...
Nevertheless, I believe that Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev will see to it that the treaty is ratified on Friday, for ultimately the treaty not only benefits them and their security needs, it also gives Russia a much needed edge over the US. Additionaly, I do not believe that Mr. Medvedev and Mr. Putin are prepared to leave Obama hanging out to dry - not right now, not after he just handed them a major victory.
At a later date in time, however, they will indeed leave him hanging, and, while they're watching him cling to the laundry line they'll have a few beers, and they'll laugh, and they'll scoff.
And the former KGB bigwig and his disciple will live happily ever after.
Rape victim with pacemaker pushed to the floor, dragged, handcuffed and arrested for refusing TSA pat down
Story and video is here.
TSA pat downs may be a necessity, but why did they manhandle this woman, and why did they arrest her? If she refused the pat down, they could have simply denied her entry onto the plane. Was she trying to force herself onto the plane that they felt the need to arrest her? Who Knows.
TSA pat downs may be a necessity, but why did they manhandle this woman, and why did they arrest her? If she refused the pat down, they could have simply denied her entry onto the plane. Was she trying to force herself onto the plane that they felt the need to arrest her? Who Knows.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Anna Chapman, Russian spy, 'to lead youth wing of Putin's United Russia party'
Anna Chapman, one of the ten Russian spies arrested by the FBI in June on charges of spying for Russia, will soon be appointed to lead a youth wing of Vladimir Putin's United Russia political party, the Telegraph-uk reported on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, President Obama has yet to announce whether he'll meet with the Russian Prime Minister and Ms. Chapman, and join them in singing a few patriotic songs in honor of the "Motherland" - as part of his efforts to reset US/Russian ties. Failure to ratify the new START treaty, however, would likely scuttle any such plans - which, undoubtedly, is the impetus behind Obama's rush to ratify the treaty. If the new START treaty is ultimately ratified by congress, both Mr. Putin and Ms. Chapman would have little choice but to allow Mr. Obama to sing along with them.
A brilliant strategy on Obama's part, indeed!
It should be noted, though, that President Obama is still not fluent in the Russian language, which would make it difficult for him to sing the lyrics of "Where the Motherland Begins". However, that would not prevent him from singing the melody while Mr. Putin and the Russian spy belt out the lyrics. It would be a grandiose way to START [pun intended] off the new relationship.
I can't wait!
Miss Chapman's role in the pro-Putin youth organization will involve working with "patriots and young businesspeople", a source in the organization told Russian media.Mr. Putin met with the ten spies, upon their return to Russia in July, and sang "patriotic" songs with them:
“We talked about life. We sang. It was not karaoke but live music,” said Putin. "We sang From Where the Motherland Begins..."According to CBS News "Putin warned that the "traitors" who exposed [the spies] could end up "in a ditch."
“I’m not joking," he said, "I’m serious. And [we sang] other songs with a similar content."
The spies have been lampooned in the West as incompetents, but Mr Putin portrayed them as brave people doing difficult jobs for the motherland.
Just imagine,” he said. “You need to master a language like your mother tongue. You need to think in it, speak in it.
“You need to fulfill the task set in the interests of your motherland for many many years, not counting on diplomatic cover, expose yourself and your loved ones to danger.”
The ten would now be found “worthy” jobs in Russia and lead interesting lives, he predicted. He also said that the spies had been betrayed, hinting darkly that he knew the betrayers’ names.
Meanwhile, President Obama has yet to announce whether he'll meet with the Russian Prime Minister and Ms. Chapman, and join them in singing a few patriotic songs in honor of the "Motherland" - as part of his efforts to reset US/Russian ties. Failure to ratify the new START treaty, however, would likely scuttle any such plans - which, undoubtedly, is the impetus behind Obama's rush to ratify the treaty. If the new START treaty is ultimately ratified by congress, both Mr. Putin and Ms. Chapman would have little choice but to allow Mr. Obama to sing along with them.
A brilliant strategy on Obama's part, indeed!
It should be noted, though, that President Obama is still not fluent in the Russian language, which would make it difficult for him to sing the lyrics of "Where the Motherland Begins". However, that would not prevent him from singing the melody while Mr. Putin and the Russian spy belt out the lyrics. It would be a grandiose way to START [pun intended] off the new relationship.
I can't wait!
Monday, December 20, 2010
Mitch McConnell, the START treaty and Obama's politically motivated timetables
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the senate floor on Monday to speak about the new START treaty. He concluded his remarks with the following statement:
"Our top concern should be the safety and security of our nation, not some politician's desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the first of the year. Americans have had more than enough of artificial timelines set by politicians eager for attention. They want us to focus on their concerns, not ours, and never more so than on matters of National Security."
The aforementioned statement and more in the video below:
"Our top concern should be the safety and security of our nation, not some politician's desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the first of the year. Americans have had more than enough of artificial timelines set by politicians eager for attention. They want us to focus on their concerns, not ours, and never more so than on matters of National Security."
The aforementioned statement and more in the video below:
Mark Kirk, a no-show at DADT repeal celebration?
During his acceptance speech last month, after he had won the US Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama, Republican Mark Kirk described himself as a "fiscal conservative, a social moderate and a national security hawk."
On Thursday, while Sen. John McCain was speaking on the senate floor, thanking both his senate colleagues and the American people for their assistance in facilitating the demise of the Omnibus pork bill, Mr. Kirk interjected himself into McCain's remarks and asked him, "did we just win?”
McCain responded to the affirmative.
Kirk continued: "So for economic conservatives, a 1,924 page bill just died?"
McCain, once again, answered to the affirmative.
Kirk continued on with his game and finally concluded:
“All of the GOP senators just signed a letter to the leadership this morning saying that we should not move forward with this as representatives of the new mandate. And it seems change has come to the Senate tonight with the death of this $1.1 trillion plan.”
In his aforementioned remarks, Mr. Kirk, the self-described 'fiscal conservative and social moderate' noted: "for ECONOMIC conservatives, a 1,924 page bill just died."
Kirk, was in essence, making the point that, although he had interjected himself into Sen. McCain's remarks in order to bask in the limelight and glean some positive PR for himself, he was still a moderate and that he was only a conservative when it pertains to economics.
On Saturday, Mr. Kirk proved the aforementioned point when he and several Republicans, including Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, broke with the GOP and voted in favor of repealing DADT. Shortly before the vote, President Obama's political arm, Organizing for America, dropped off a petition with 28,000 signatures [from the state of Illinois] at Kirk's Washington office, demanding that he vote in favor of repealing DADT. [OFA made a similar drop-off at Senator Scott Brown's door.] OFA also organized a massive phone campaign to Kirk's office. It goes without saying that OFA did not support Mr. Kirk's senatorial campaign, but nevertheless, Kirk, the self-described "social Democrat", granted Barack Obama's acolytes their Christmas wish.
However, as Sen. McCain noted on the senate floor on Saturday, repealing DADT is not merely a social and moral issue, it is also a national security issue that will likely have a huge detrimental effect on the US military. Hence, although Mr. Kirk, as mentioned earlier, depicts himself to be a "national security hawk", his vote on Saturday belies any such notion.
During his remarks Thursday on the senate floor, Kirk stated, with regards to omnibus bill's demise:
"All of the GOP senators just signed a letter to the leadership this morning saying that we should not move forward with this as representatives of the new mandate. And it seems change has come to the Senate tonight with the death of this $1.1 trillion plan."
Does Mr. Kirk really believe that the new mandate, which he was elected to represent, entails him to heed the directives of Organizing for America?
In his remarks, Kirk went on to say: "And it seems change has come to the Senate tonight with the death of this $1.1 trillion plan."
But sadly, Mr. Kirk is living proof that just the opposite is true - that [real] change has yet to arrive in the Senate.
On Saturday, when Senate Democrats came out to the Senate floor to celebrate their victory [the DADT repeal], Kirk was nowhere to be found.
Was he hiding in an undisclosed location, salivating over his recent PR stunt and on how he had managed to hog some of the limelight from Sen. McCain?
On Thursday, while Sen. John McCain was speaking on the senate floor, thanking both his senate colleagues and the American people for their assistance in facilitating the demise of the Omnibus pork bill, Mr. Kirk interjected himself into McCain's remarks and asked him, "did we just win?”
McCain responded to the affirmative.
Kirk continued: "So for economic conservatives, a 1,924 page bill just died?"
McCain, once again, answered to the affirmative.
Kirk continued on with his game and finally concluded:
“All of the GOP senators just signed a letter to the leadership this morning saying that we should not move forward with this as representatives of the new mandate. And it seems change has come to the Senate tonight with the death of this $1.1 trillion plan.”
In his aforementioned remarks, Mr. Kirk, the self-described 'fiscal conservative and social moderate' noted: "for ECONOMIC conservatives, a 1,924 page bill just died."
Kirk, was in essence, making the point that, although he had interjected himself into Sen. McCain's remarks in order to bask in the limelight and glean some positive PR for himself, he was still a moderate and that he was only a conservative when it pertains to economics.
On Saturday, Mr. Kirk proved the aforementioned point when he and several Republicans, including Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, broke with the GOP and voted in favor of repealing DADT. Shortly before the vote, President Obama's political arm, Organizing for America, dropped off a petition with 28,000 signatures [from the state of Illinois] at Kirk's Washington office, demanding that he vote in favor of repealing DADT. [OFA made a similar drop-off at Senator Scott Brown's door.] OFA also organized a massive phone campaign to Kirk's office. It goes without saying that OFA did not support Mr. Kirk's senatorial campaign, but nevertheless, Kirk, the self-described "social Democrat", granted Barack Obama's acolytes their Christmas wish.
However, as Sen. McCain noted on the senate floor on Saturday, repealing DADT is not merely a social and moral issue, it is also a national security issue that will likely have a huge detrimental effect on the US military. Hence, although Mr. Kirk, as mentioned earlier, depicts himself to be a "national security hawk", his vote on Saturday belies any such notion.
During his remarks Thursday on the senate floor, Kirk stated, with regards to omnibus bill's demise:
"All of the GOP senators just signed a letter to the leadership this morning saying that we should not move forward with this as representatives of the new mandate. And it seems change has come to the Senate tonight with the death of this $1.1 trillion plan."
Does Mr. Kirk really believe that the new mandate, which he was elected to represent, entails him to heed the directives of Organizing for America?
In his remarks, Kirk went on to say: "And it seems change has come to the Senate tonight with the death of this $1.1 trillion plan."
But sadly, Mr. Kirk is living proof that just the opposite is true - that [real] change has yet to arrive in the Senate.
On Saturday, when Senate Democrats came out to the Senate floor to celebrate their victory [the DADT repeal], Kirk was nowhere to be found.
Was he hiding in an undisclosed location, salivating over his recent PR stunt and on how he had managed to hog some of the limelight from Sen. McCain?
Thursday, December 16, 2010
John McCain & Mark Kirk celebrate the death of the omnibus pork bill
Despite President Obama's directive to congress to pass a proposed omnibus spending bill containing $8 billion in earmarks, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Thursday reluctantly conceded that he did not have sufficient votes to file for cloture on the bill and therefore he was unable to bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote.
Republican Senators John McCain and Mark Kirk celebrated the good news on the senate floor:
Republican Senators John McCain and Mark Kirk celebrated the good news on the senate floor:
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Obama & the Omnibus hostage-takers - Part 2
Despite all the rhetoric, the speeches and the weekly radio addresses in which President Obama promised to do way with earmarks, the Obama administration on Wednesday advised Congress to pass an omnibus spending bill containing $8 billion in earmarks. An administration source offered up a lame excuse to ABC News as to why the administration had decided to endorse the pork-laden bill.
It should be noted, however, that the President, in the past, has faulted congress for engendering all the earmarks and the pork, but he himself created plenty of those earmarks - not to mention the sweetheart deals the White House made with various CEO's and lawmakers behind closed doors, including the Nebraska Cornhusker bribe, the Pharma deal and various other covert transactions.
Last week, MSNBC reported: "Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China..."
The aforementioned individuals donated heavily to Obama's Presidential campaign and bundled plenty of dough for Obama.
What's more, as I've noted previously, dozens of former lobbyists and bundlers to Obama's Presidential campaign have been appointed to various positions within the Obama administration.
Clearly, when it comes to making sweetheart deals and catering to cronies, and special interest groups, Obama reigns supreme.
Yesterday, I noted how the President - in a press conference last week - characterized Republicans in congress as hostage-takers who were holding the middle class tax cuts "hostage to the high end tax cuts." And I questioned whether Obama would also label the earmark culprits as hostage-takers who were holding the omnibus bill hostage to their beloved earmarks and pork. I wondered whether Obama would consider overriding or confronting the earmark hoarders:
The King of special interests would never even contemplate taking on the spenders, for ultimately, it is Obama himself, who is the ultimate spender.
The President has already created tons of pork, and in doing so, has taken American taxpayer dollars hostage. But sadly, unlike many other hostages, these hostages will never be released. There is no ransom, worth that kind of money, that can possibly free them. They belong to Obama. And they are his to keep.
It should be noted, however, that the President, in the past, has faulted congress for engendering all the earmarks and the pork, but he himself created plenty of those earmarks - not to mention the sweetheart deals the White House made with various CEO's and lawmakers behind closed doors, including the Nebraska Cornhusker bribe, the Pharma deal and various other covert transactions.
Last week, MSNBC reported: "Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China..."
The aforementioned individuals donated heavily to Obama's Presidential campaign and bundled plenty of dough for Obama.
What's more, as I've noted previously, dozens of former lobbyists and bundlers to Obama's Presidential campaign have been appointed to various positions within the Obama administration.
Clearly, when it comes to making sweetheart deals and catering to cronies, and special interest groups, Obama reigns supreme.
Yesterday, I noted how the President - in a press conference last week - characterized Republicans in congress as hostage-takers who were holding the middle class tax cuts "hostage to the high end tax cuts." And I questioned whether Obama would also label the earmark culprits as hostage-takers who were holding the omnibus bill hostage to their beloved earmarks and pork. I wondered whether Obama would consider overriding or confronting the earmark hoarders:
Will President Obama capitulate to the demands of the hostage-takers? Will he extort billions of taxpayer dollars to pay up the 'earmark' ransom? Will he even bother to use his beloved "hostage" analogy this time around? Or, is this analogy a tactic to be used exclusively to squeeze out money from the taxpayers, and one that must never be used - by the President - to save taxpayers their hard-earned money?...And today, the White House gave us the answer:
The King of special interests would never even contemplate taking on the spenders, for ultimately, it is Obama himself, who is the ultimate spender.
The President has already created tons of pork, and in doing so, has taken American taxpayer dollars hostage. But sadly, unlike many other hostages, these hostages will never be released. There is no ransom, worth that kind of money, that can possibly free them. They belong to Obama. And they are his to keep.
'Wikileaks: The [video] Game' - Julian Assange vs. a snoozing Barack Obama
A new video game, called "Wikileaks: The Game", has been released. The game features President Obama and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
In the game, players control Mr. Assange as he attempts to download classified information from the President's laptop while the President takes a snooze. How much information Mr. Assange is able to download depends on the player. In the real world, however, Assange is clearly defeating the President, hands down. But of course, this isn't the real world, it's a video game. Besides, the President doesn't appear to be too concerned about the leaking of classified information and, at least for the time being, he hasn't really made an effort to stop Assange - which explains why the President is snoozing in the video:
In the game, players control Mr. Assange as he attempts to download classified information from the President's laptop while the President takes a snooze. How much information Mr. Assange is able to download depends on the player. In the real world, however, Assange is clearly defeating the President, hands down. But of course, this isn't the real world, it's a video game. Besides, the President doesn't appear to be too concerned about the leaking of classified information and, at least for the time being, he hasn't really made an effort to stop Assange - which explains why the President is snoozing in the video:
Will Obama capitulate to the Omnibus hostage-takers?
Last week, President Obama likened congressional Republicans to hostage-takers, who were holding the middle class tax cuts "hostage to the high end tax cuts". [In truth, it was the Democrats who were holding the middle class tax cuts hostage to their proposal to end the high end tax cuts.]
A day earlier, Sen. Claire McCaskill made the same analogy [as the President]:
"I'm frustrated the Republicans are holding the middle class hostage for really added tax bonuses for millionaires that we really can't afford right now with our deficit," McCaskill said. "It would be nice if they came to their senses."
Truth be told, Republicans were merely trying to extend the same middle class and high end tax cuts that have been in effect for the past ten years. Nevertheless, both the President and Sen. McCaskill made the same exact analogy - which begs the question: Did the President borrow the analogy from Sen. McCaskill? Or was this simply a case of two Great Minds thinking alike? Who knows.
On Tuesday, Sen. McCaskill [a self-described moderate Democrat] once again, reverted to the "hostage" analogy to voice her displeasure with the new omnibus bill [unveiled on Tuesday], which contains $8 billion dollars in earmarks. The earmarks are predominantly, and overwhelmingly, Democratic earmarks:
Will President Obama capitulate to the demands of the hostage-takers? Will he extort billions of taxpayer dollars to pay up the 'earmark' ransom? Will he even bother to use his beloved "hostage" analogy this time around? Or, is this analogy a tactic to be used exclusively to squeeze out more money from the taxpayers, and one that must never be used - by the President - to save taxpayers their hard-earned money?
Only time will tell.
Update - December 15: The Obama administration has advised Congress to pass the omnibus spending bill containing the $8 billion in earmarks.
A day earlier, Sen. Claire McCaskill made the same analogy [as the President]:
"I'm frustrated the Republicans are holding the middle class hostage for really added tax bonuses for millionaires that we really can't afford right now with our deficit," McCaskill said. "It would be nice if they came to their senses."
Truth be told, Republicans were merely trying to extend the same middle class and high end tax cuts that have been in effect for the past ten years. Nevertheless, both the President and Sen. McCaskill made the same exact analogy - which begs the question: Did the President borrow the analogy from Sen. McCaskill? Or was this simply a case of two Great Minds thinking alike? Who knows.
On Tuesday, Sen. McCaskill [a self-described moderate Democrat] once again, reverted to the "hostage" analogy to voice her displeasure with the new omnibus bill [unveiled on Tuesday], which contains $8 billion dollars in earmarks. The earmarks are predominantly, and overwhelmingly, Democratic earmarks:
Obama last month called for an earmark ban...Hence, the question arises:
Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-partisan group that tracks federal spending, said Tuesday evening it had found 6,600 earmarks worth $8 billion [in the omnibus bill]...
Sen. Claire McCaskill... said the omnibus would present Obama with a tough choice if it passes Congress.
“He know the abuses that occur with earmarking; he knows that it’s arbitrary and we’re not in a time where we should spending money arbitrarily,” said McCaskill. But she added that the rest of the budget is being “held hostage to the earmarks.”
Will President Obama capitulate to the demands of the hostage-takers? Will he extort billions of taxpayer dollars to pay up the 'earmark' ransom? Will he even bother to use his beloved "hostage" analogy this time around? Or, is this analogy a tactic to be used exclusively to squeeze out more money from the taxpayers, and one that must never be used - by the President - to save taxpayers their hard-earned money?
Only time will tell.
Update - December 15: The Obama administration has advised Congress to pass the omnibus spending bill containing the $8 billion in earmarks.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
TSA X-Ray Machines Easily Fooled, Researchers Find
From Fox News:
Related Video: Naked airport scanner catches cellphone, misses bomb components
Any would-be terrorist can easily outsmart the ubiquitous backscatter scanners found in major airports around the world, two scientists say...According to the aforementioned report, "Normal anatomy would make a dangerous amount of plastic explosive with tapered edges difficult if not impossible to detect."
Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson, two physics professors at the University of California, San Francisco offer a stark conclusion: [The TSA's X-ray backscatter scanners] can be easily duped, according to a recent paper published in the Journal of Transportation Security.
It is very likely that a large (15–20 cm in diameter), irregularly-shaped, cm-thick pancake with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, would be invisible to this technology -- ironically because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy," the researchers said in the paper... [Ed. Note: The researchers note that "forty grams of PETN, a purportedly dangerous amount, would fit in a 1.25 mm-thick pancake... and be virtually invisible." A 100 grams of PETN is enough to blow up a car.]
"It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a box-cutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible," the paper notes.
Experts have already highlighted that such machines are unable to detect hidden plastic explosives. The authors of the new paper expand on these limitations -- and it couldn’t come at a worse time, as families prepare for holiday travel plans...
Related Video: Naked airport scanner catches cellphone, misses bomb components
UCLA professor Kent Wong slams racism, derides 'old white men' in congress
Recent quotes from UCLA professor [and former staff attorney for the SEIU in LA] Mr. Kent Wong:
On illegal immigration and racism:
"Let us be very clear what is behind the anti immigrant hysteria in congress today... It is racism, plain and simple!"
On "Old White Men" in Congress:
"We will win the dream act soon - very soon.... And when that day happens, the young leaders of this DREAM Act movement will go on to accomplish great things with your lives... You will go on to become lawyers, teachers, doctors and members of the US congress to replace those Old White Men..."
On illegal immigration and racism:
"Let us be very clear what is behind the anti immigrant hysteria in congress today... It is racism, plain and simple!"
On "Old White Men" in Congress:
"We will win the dream act soon - very soon.... And when that day happens, the young leaders of this DREAM Act movement will go on to accomplish great things with your lives... You will go on to become lawyers, teachers, doctors and members of the US congress to replace those Old White Men..."
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Bill Clinton: "Stimulus" is no longer an acceptable word
During a joint press conference with President Obama on Friday, former President Bill Clinton uttered the word "stimulus", and then reminded himself that: "We're not supposed to use that word anymore":
Romney $10,000 bet vs Obama $500 Million bet - Capitalism vs Socialism
During the Republican Presidential debate on Saturday, Mitt Romney challenged Rick Perry to a $10,000 bet over a passage he had written in his book about his health care policy.
Former Obama adviser, Bill Burton pounced upon Romney and tweeted, "Not alot of 99%'ers are out there making $10,000 bets." The DNC and the mainstream media quickly joined the chorus and portrayed Romney as a wealthy, privileged individual, who is out of touch with the middle class.
But truth be told, Romney was simply using his own hard-earned money to wager a pretty simple and low-risk bet. Barack Obama, though, by his own admission, has used millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to make bets on investment projects that faced the strong prospect of failure.
The contrast can't be any clearer: It's Capitalism vs. Socialism.
Former Obama adviser, Bill Burton pounced upon Romney and tweeted, "Not alot of 99%'ers are out there making $10,000 bets." The DNC and the mainstream media quickly joined the chorus and portrayed Romney as a wealthy, privileged individual, who is out of touch with the middle class.
But truth be told, Romney was simply using his own hard-earned money to wager a pretty simple and low-risk bet. Barack Obama, though, by his own admission, has used millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to make bets on investment projects that faced the strong prospect of failure.
The contrast can't be any clearer: It's Capitalism vs. Socialism.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Obama administration, E.P.A delay tougher rules on emissions
President Obama has opted to place a moratorium on his left-wing environmental agenda, for fear that his agenda would only push the economy further south and exacerbate the fiscal paralysis that is already being fueled by his socialist-leaning policies:
From the New York Times:
From the New York Times:
The Obama administration is retreating on long-delayed environmental regulations — new rules governing smog and toxic emissions from industrial boilers...
The move to delay the rules, announced this week by the Environmental Protection Agency, will leave in place policies set by President George W. Bush. President Obama ran for office promising tougher standards, and the new rules were set to take effect over the next several weeks.
Now, the agency says, it needs until July 2011 to further analyze scientific and health studies of the smog rules and until April 2012 on the boiler regulation. Mr. Obama, having just cut a painful deal with Republicans intended to stimulate the economy, can ill afford to be seen as simultaneously throttling the fragile recovery by imposing a sheaf of expensive new environmental regulations that critics say will cost jobs.
The delays represent a marked departure from the first two years of the Obama presidency, when the E.P.A. moved quickly to reverse one Bush environmental policy after another. Administration officials now face the question of whether in their zeal to undo the Bush agenda they reached too far and provoked an unmanageable political backlash...
The F-bomb: Bush tax cuts vs. Health care reform, which one is a "bigger" deal?
Question: Which issue is more important to Democrats in Congress: Health care reform or a repeal of the Bush-era tax cuts?
Answer: During the signing ceremony of the health care reform bill in March, an elated Vice President, Joe Biden, used the F-bomb to express his exuberance with the passage of the bill. Biden whispered into President Obama's ear, "This is a Big F---ing deal!"
However, during a House Democratic caucus meeting on Thursday, an unidentified lawmaker was overheard muttering to himself, “f--- the president", as he expressed his anger with the President's inability to override Republican opposition to a proposed repeal of the Bush-era tax cuts.
Both issues - health care reform and the Bush tax cuts - appear to be significant enough to have evoked the f-bomb from the Democrats. However, the Vice President's f-bomb in March was preceded by the word 'BIG' - "this is a 'BIG' F---ing deal" - whereas the unidentified lawmaker's f-bomb on Thursday - “f---- the president" - was not preceded by any kind of adjective. Which leads me to believe that health care reform is indeed a "bigger" deal and a more important issue to Democrats than the Bush tax cuts.
Health care reform, for the Democrats, appears to be both the ultimate and the 'biggest' f---ing deal of 'em all!
Answer: During the signing ceremony of the health care reform bill in March, an elated Vice President, Joe Biden, used the F-bomb to express his exuberance with the passage of the bill. Biden whispered into President Obama's ear, "This is a Big F---ing deal!"
However, during a House Democratic caucus meeting on Thursday, an unidentified lawmaker was overheard muttering to himself, “f--- the president", as he expressed his anger with the President's inability to override Republican opposition to a proposed repeal of the Bush-era tax cuts.
Both issues - health care reform and the Bush tax cuts - appear to be significant enough to have evoked the f-bomb from the Democrats. However, the Vice President's f-bomb in March was preceded by the word 'BIG' - "this is a 'BIG' F---ing deal" - whereas the unidentified lawmaker's f-bomb on Thursday - “f---- the president" - was not preceded by any kind of adjective. Which leads me to believe that health care reform is indeed a "bigger" deal and a more important issue to Democrats than the Bush tax cuts.
Health care reform, for the Democrats, appears to be both the ultimate and the 'biggest' f---ing deal of 'em all!
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Obama negotiating with hostage takers, itching for a fight & healing the partisan divide
President Obama, at a press conference on Tuesday, discussed the Bush tax cuts and his recent negotiations with Republican lawmakers. Mr. Obama referred to GOP lawmakers as "hostage takers". The President's remarks, and some of his previous remarks, in which he pledged to tone down 'the political rhetoric', can be seen in the video below:
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
WikiLeaks: Saudis proposed Arab force to invade Lebanon & fight Hezbollah
From the AFP:
Saudi Arabia proposed setting up an Arab force to fight Hezbollah militants in Lebanon with the help of the United States, UN and NATO, a leaked US diplomatic cable said Tuesday.
In a meeting in May 2008 with US ambassador to Iraq David Satterfield, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said a "security response" was needed to the "military challenge" posed to Beirut by the Iran-backed militants.
The Saudi prince feared a Hezbollah victory against the Lebanese government led by then prime minister Fuad Siniora would eventually lead to Iran's takeover of the country.
There was a need for an "Arab force" to create and maintain order in and around Beirut, he argued...
Such a force would be aided by UNIFIL troops deployed in southern Lebanon, while the "US and NATO would need to provide movement and logistic support, as well as naval and air cover," the cable added...
What was needed was an "Arab force" drawn from Arab "periphery" states to deploy to Beirut under the "cover of the UN," Saud said, accusing the UN troops in southern Lebanon of "sitting doing nothing."
But Satterfield said there were real questions about the "political and military" feasibility of such a scheme, and winning a new mandate for UNIFIL would be difficult.
A US diplomatic memo released earlier by WikiLeaks showed Saudi Arabia is obsessed by what it sees as a threat from Iran [and Iran's nuclear aspirations]...
Obama's Taliban-friendly policy, a death knell to US troops
The Obama administration recently engaged in a policy of rapprochement with so-called moderate elements of the Taliban, hoping to strike a deal that would integrate them into the Afghan government and thus facilitate the President's planned exit strategy from Afghanistan. But unfortunately, as it turned out, Obama and his minions were duped by the enemy.
The New York Times, last month, reported as follows:
It is also important to note, what was reported several months ago, namely that, as part of the aforementioned strategy of reconciling with the enemy, the U.S. released certain Taliban prisoners, hoping to reintegrate them into Afghan society and subsequently win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people:
For indeed, the release of suspect Taliban, rather than being 'a symptom of the corruption of the Karzai government' is, in actuality, a symptom of the inept and corrupt policies of the Obama administration who, in its zeal to latch on to an exit strategy, no matter how weak and lame the exit strategy may be, believed it could simlpy wave its magic wand and rehabilitate the terrorists.
As the aforementioned New York Times article noted, "Military officials describe reintegration... as an interim effort ahead of a more formal process that they hope the Afghan government will adopt at a political summit meeting in Kabul in coming weeks."
The Obama administration is pulling the strings, Karzai is simply following orders.
As it turned out, Obama's reconciliation and reintegration bid was all a waste of time and energy, which led to plenty of spilled blood and countless deaths among US troops.
One final footnote: Several months ago, the Guardian UK reported that 80% of prisoners released from the US-run Camp Bucca in Iraq have rejoined terrorists:
And although US officials say the aforementioned detainees were released into Iraqi custody, the decision to hand them over to the Iraqis has brought about a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq.
Hence, there is no need to blame Mr. Karzai or anyone else for the aforementioned carnage, when, in reality, the primary culprits are sitting in the White House.
The New York Times, last month, reported as follows:
For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.[The Obama administration, cognizant of the fact that it had been duped all along, has now altered its strategy, somewhat.]
But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.
“It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.”...
NATO and Afghan officials said they held three meetings with the man...
As recently as last month, American and Afghan officials held high hopes for the talks. Senior American officials, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, said the talks indicated that Taliban leaders... were at least willing to discuss an end to the war.
The American officials said they and officials of other NATO governments were helping to facilitate the discussions, by providing air transport and securing roadways for Taliban leaders coming from Pakistan.
Last month, White House officials asked The New York Times to withhold Mr. Mansour’s name from an article about the peace talks, expressing concern that the talks would be jeopardized — and Mr. Mansour’s life put at risk — if his involvement were publicized....
It is also important to note, what was reported several months ago, namely that, as part of the aforementioned strategy of reconciling with the enemy, the U.S. released certain Taliban prisoners, hoping to reintegrate them into Afghan society and subsequently win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people:
The young Taliban prisoner was led to a sweltering military tent, seated among 17 village elders and then, faced a chief accuser brandishing a document with the elders’ signatures or thumbprints. Capt. Scott A. Cuomo, a United States Marine commander who was acting as the prosecutor, told the prisoner: “This letter right here is a sworn pledge from all of your elders that they’re vouching for you and that you will never support the Taliban or fight for the Taliban ever again.”From McClatchy Newspapers, June 20, 2010:
After a half-hour “trial,” the captain rendered the group’s judgment on the silent prisoner, Juma Khan, 23, whom the Marines had seized after finding a bomb trigger device, ammunition and opium buried in his yard. Mr. Khan’s father and grandfather, who was one of the elders, were among the group. “So on behalf of peace, your family, your grandfather,” Captain Cuomo solemnly said, “we’re going to let you go.”...
Acting under military guidelines aimed at persuading low-level fighters to lay down their arms, commanders repeat the mantra that the United States will never kill its way to victory in Afghanistan. They say that in a counterinsurgency war intended to win over the population, reintegration is crucial...
Military officials describe reintegration so far as sporadic at best, an interim effort ahead of a more formal process that they hope the Afghan government will adopt at a political summit meeting in Kabul in coming weeks.
Afghanistan's controversial new commission formed to release suspected Taliban prisoners has set free 14 detainees already, primarily from U.S. custody, and more than two dozen more releases are imminent, Afghan officials told McClatchy on Sunday.The reason I'm rehashing all of this right now is due to an article I read in today's Washington Examiner, entitled "Catch-and-release of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan angers troops.":
McClatchy has discovered the committee... is apparently getting co-operation from the U.S. military in Afghanistan. The committee is now pouring over lists of more detainees....
Robert Everdeen, a spokesman for the U.S. prison at the Bagram air base, now known as the detention facility at Parwan, said that "we have freed 12 detainees within the last week,"... He added that 20 more detainees were expected to be freed "in the near future."
More than 500 suspected Taliban fighters detained by U.S. forces have been released from custody at the urging of Afghan government officials, angering both American troops and some Afghans who oppose the policy on the grounds that many of those released return to the battlefield to kill NATO soldiers and Afghan civilians...I beg to differ a tad bit with that assessment.
For American combat troops in Afghanistan, the release of suspect Taliban is seen as a symptom of the corruption of the Karzai government...
For indeed, the release of suspect Taliban, rather than being 'a symptom of the corruption of the Karzai government' is, in actuality, a symptom of the inept and corrupt policies of the Obama administration who, in its zeal to latch on to an exit strategy, no matter how weak and lame the exit strategy may be, believed it could simlpy wave its magic wand and rehabilitate the terrorists.
As the aforementioned New York Times article noted, "Military officials describe reintegration... as an interim effort ahead of a more formal process that they hope the Afghan government will adopt at a political summit meeting in Kabul in coming weeks."
The Obama administration is pulling the strings, Karzai is simply following orders.
As it turned out, Obama's reconciliation and reintegration bid was all a waste of time and energy, which led to plenty of spilled blood and countless deaths among US troops.
One final footnote: Several months ago, the Guardian UK reported that 80% of prisoners released from the US-run Camp Bucca in Iraq have rejoined terrorists:
Iraqi security chiefs are blaming a big rise in violence this year on detainees released from the contentious American prison system who used their time in custody to appoint new leaders and plot mayhem after their release...Many of these former detainees, the Guardian notes, were behind a slew of bombings and attacks that took place in Iraq.
Major General Ahmed Obeidi al-Saedi, who leads the sixth division of the Iraqi army in south and west Baghdad, claims as many as 80% of detainees have either aligned, or realigned with militant groups, mostly to al-Qaida in Iraq, or its affiliates. He said 86 former inmates of the US prisons, known as Camp Cropper and Camp Bucca, have been rearrested since 10 March.
I say to you emphatically that 80% who have been released from Bucca have returned to work with the terrorists and have in fact become stronger," said General Saedi, whose area of command has been increasingly under attack over the past two months.
"We ask them, did they finish their time in prison rehabilitated psychologically and they say 'no, it was the perfect environment to reorganise al-Qaida'."
And although US officials say the aforementioned detainees were released into Iraqi custody, the decision to hand them over to the Iraqis has brought about a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq.
Hence, there is no need to blame Mr. Karzai or anyone else for the aforementioned carnage, when, in reality, the primary culprits are sitting in the White House.
Monday, December 6, 2010
News - Dec.6, '10
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Obama rescinds his rescindment of drilling moratorium
On October 12, the Obama adminstration lifted its ban on deepwater drilling, which was initially scheduled to end November 30. The lifting of the moratorium - six weeks ahead of schedule and three weeks before the midterm elections elections - was clearly intended to give Democrats a boost at the polls.
A commenter on Michelle Malkin's blog noted at the time: "Obama was against drilling before he was for it and most likely, after the election, will be against it once again."
And lo and behold the New York Times informs us today that, "the Obama administration is rescinding its decision to expand offshore oil exploration into the eastern Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic coast because of weaknesses in federal regulation revealed by the BP oil spill."
Apparently, the weaknesses in federal regulation, which had been rectified, have fallen into a state of disrepair.
Confused?
A commenter on Michelle Malkin's blog noted at the time: "Obama was against drilling before he was for it and most likely, after the election, will be against it once again."
And lo and behold the New York Times informs us today that, "the Obama administration is rescinding its decision to expand offshore oil exploration into the eastern Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic coast because of weaknesses in federal regulation revealed by the BP oil spill."
Apparently, the weaknesses in federal regulation, which had been rectified, have fallen into a state of disrepair.
Confused?
A Stimulus Project that LITERALLY runs (and runs the economy) into a DITCH!
A sidewalk in Boynton, Oklahoma funded by President Obama's stimulus package
During the midterm election campaign, President Obama repeatedly used his now-infamous “car in the ditch” analogy to falsely illustrate how Republicans had run the US economy into a ditch. At the time, I posted a YouTube video connecting the President's so-called "shovel ready projects" - which Obama recently conceded are non-existent - to the “ditch” analogy. The point, and the analogy, I was trying to make was that the President's astronomically exorbitant stimulus package was funding non-existent projects with non-existent shovels, that were digging, or running, the economy into a ditch.
However, upon reading an article, written in August by Senators John McCain and Tom Coburn, entitled "100 Wasteful Stimulus Projects That Actually Cost America Jobs", I noticed how one particular [stimulus-funded] project literally runs directly into a ditch, no analogy necessary!
People around Boynton, Oklahoma were left scratching their heads after the town was awarded nearly $90,000 [in stimulus funds] to replace a quarter-mile stretch of sidewalk that was replaced only five years ago.
One longtime resident of Boynton, Ray Allen, said the project “had been the talk of the town recently, and none of it positive,” because it is “100 percent a waste of money.”
Another resident, Mike Lance, noted that “the best indication of the absurdity of the project is what the contractor did with a section of sidewalk at the north end of town – one that fronts no homes or businesses, and leads directly into a ditch.”
A sidewalk in Boynton, Oklahoma funded by President Obama's stimulus package, that leads directly into a ditch
That's right, directly into a ditch! No analogy necessary!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)