NYT 'analysis' piece. I thought Vietnams only happened to Republican presidents these days ...
By Peter Baker
WASHINGTON -- President Obama had not even taken office before supporters were etching his likeness onto Mount Rushmore as another Abraham Lincoln or the second coming of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Yet what if they got the wrong predecessor? What if Mr. Obama is fated to be another Lyndon B. Johnson instead?
Wasn't President Johnson the white guy who lifted his beagle up by the ears? Somebody doesn't like Mr. Obama any more.
To be sure, such historical analogies are overly simplistic and fatally flawed, if only because each presidency is distinct in its own way.
Well golly, that was profound. And deep, man.
But the L.B.J. model -- a president who aspired to reshape America at home while fighting a losing war abroad -- is one that haunts Mr. Obama's White House as it seeks to salvage Afghanistan while enacting an expansive domestic program.
Does Mr. Obama's White House even know about its previous residents from the dim past? I've seen no hint of a historical sensibility.
In this summer of discontent for Mr. Obama, as the heady early days give way to the grinding battle for elusive goals, he looks ahead to an uncertain future not only for his legislative agenda but for what has indisputably become his war. Last week's elections in Afghanistan played out at the same time as the debate over health care heated up in Washington, producing one of those split-screen moments that could not help but remind some
The legendary Some make their appearance. Some always make their opinions known in New York Times pieces of any weight.
of Mr. Johnson's struggles to build a Great Society while fighting in Vietnam.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/23/2009 00:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I see three factors at work here. First of all, the Democrats despise the military, not just as an organization, but the individuals within it as well, as is plainly obvious from their comments of the last 10 years.
Second of all, they are utterly ignorant of both foreign and military policy, yet believe themselves supernaturally gifted in both.
For these first two reasons, they believe they can dictate military strategy like playing checkers, and any intelligent military argument against those ideas are insubordination.
Like LBJ, Obama is utterly disinterested in foreign policy or the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, leaving its conduct up to worthless underlings and academics whose understanding of the military devolves from leftist anti-military organizations.
Third, the left are compelled to social experimentation and collectivism. This means that they will want a draft at some point, hand in hand with a Peace Corps evasion of the draft. This will be supported by those who still fantasize about their youth in the 1960s.
#2
"Sticking it out seems to be a 10-year project and I'm not sure we have the political capital and financial capital to do that. Yet withdrawing, the cost of that seems awfully high as well. So we have the wolf by the ear."
You may soon see Barry FEEDING the wolf. First appeasement then surrender, but it will of course be called an Islamic multi-faith negociated settlement. This "Good War" as he refers to it now, is simply unfinished business. It is much rubbish left over from the Bush administration that Barry must sweep up and dispose of. He holds no investment in Afghanistan, nor does he wish to hold any. This entire affair is a massive detractor which drains valuable resources from his midnight basketball programs and lofty liberation theology goals. I suspect it will all be brought to an end very soon.
#3
The anti-war folks are against this war and conservatives are put off by the new ROE and it's effect on troop safety. Add both together and you have the number of folks getting vocal against the war.
The ROE has only been in effect for a few weeks but someone had better show positive results soon or this WILL be another Vietnam as the press again (still) will beat the drums of defeat until BHO can't stand the heat. Of course many innocents will die in the out years but who cares? And that of course includes our troops that will die when we have to go back to finish the unfinished POS job when thing turns to a ball of snakes.
* PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUMS > MALIK: TALIBAN KILLED MEHSUD'S FATHER-IN-LAW, FAMILY [alleged collusion/conspiracy in attack?].
* WMF > CHINA'S BACKYARD ON FIRE[smoking]: CHINA SENDS A BATTALION OF PLA TROOPS TO MYABNMAR BORDER AFTER ANTI-CHINESE RIOTS; INDIA-CHINA WAR OVER TIBET [includ BHUTAN], MYANMAR, AND PAKISTAN [includ AFGHANISTAN]???
#7
WMF > OKINAWA [Ryukyus] ARE PART OF CHINA'S CONTINENTAL SHELF, hence should be part of CHINA'S OFFSHORE SOVEREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE; + JAPAN INTENDS TO USE THE US-JAPAN ALLIANCE TO SEIZE THE DAOYUS. CHINA SHOULD PROVE ITS SOVEREIGNTY BY HOLDING ROUTINE AIR, NAVAL MILEXS IN THE DAOYUS AND OTHER DISPUTED ISLANDS.
* SAME > US IS PREPARING FOR A FINAL SHOWDOWN IN ASIA AGZ CHINA AND ASIA [Cold War enemies-antagonists], + CHINA SHOULD MILPOL ATTACK THE PHILIPPINES FIRST TO BREAK THE US STRATEGIC ISOLATION OF CHINA.
Tariq Alhomayed
The title of this article not only intends to reveal that most members of the terrorist cell that Saudi Arabia discovered recently have higher education degrees, as this comes as no surprise, but also that terrorism is now being sponsored by states and the media, and political parties that talk about democracy.
When we say it comes as no surprise that some of the terrorists have degrees in higher education, it is enough to make mention of the fact that Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al Zawahiri, is a qualified surgeon. However, it is odd when states and politicians defend and propagate terrorism and even justify it. When the 44-member terrorist cell was discovered in Riyadh -- most of whom have degrees in higher education and exploited their professional characters and charity work to fund terrorist operations -- some people attacked Saudi Arabia for the sake of justifying their own failures and the shortcomings in their own country.
After the recent bombings in Iraq that targeted government buildings and claimed the lives of a large number of innocents, some people affiliated to Iran in Baghdad came out and attacked Saudi Arabia, falsely accusing it of standing in the way of stability in Iraq. And this was all with the help of Iranian media.
If we are to highlight anything, it should be that Saudi Arabia revealed [the presence] of a terrorist cell on its land with photos and facts and Saudi public opinion, or rather international public opinion, was made aware of as much detail as possible (for security reasons) about the investigation and placed the facts in front of everybody, even if they were shocking. This is the most effective way to beat terrorism, as Riyadh is not embarrassed to say that there are academics who support terrorism, or professionals who exploit charity for the sake of evil. Do other people, in Iraq in particular, have the same courage to call things by their names?
This is the best and most beneficial way for Iraq and the Iraqis to solve the country's problems, especially the faults in the political process, and to work towards reforming the country instead of justifying their failures and making comments about others.
The best thing that Saudi Arabia did, or rather is still doing is that it is facing up to its problems, one of which is terrorism, with complete transparency and confidence. Therefore, revealing the testimonies of the accused members of the cell and that they took advantage of charity work is an important reminder to Saudis to pay close attention to anybody who claims to fear God and preaches, and to pay attention to anybody who claims to be doing charity work, especially as we are in the blessed month of Ramadan.
It would have been more appropriate for those certain people in Iraq to embark on doing the same thing [as Saudi Arabia] in Baghdad in order to fight the facts and to say that the internal political failure, and acting based on the approach of sectarian quotas, and showing off for the sake of elections, will not benefit Iraq and the Iraqis.
Who is violating Iraqi security in sensitive areas supposedly under the control of Nouri al Maliki's forces, and who are the ones who exploit their statuses as security figures to rob banks and what is it they want to fund? This is very important, especially as tracking money is considered one of the quickest ways to track down terrorist activity and destruction.
It's best to face facts rather than use the issue of terrorism to settle political accounts. Therefore, don't be surprised at the emergence of terrorists with degrees in higher education as long as there are countries and politicians who are benefiting from terrorism to achieve their own limited goals.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/23/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Arabia
#1
Saudi are worried re their Sunni brothers in Iraq so will fund anyone who will fight Iran/Syria proxies ie there is a power struggle going on in the Middle East!
Ps If saudi are concerned re terrorism at home you reap what you sow!Start with the shool education and Religious authority/Wahabbism for the sunni terrorist ideology in Iraq,Pakistan and Afghan. Search Sheikh Issa for more info re his work in turning the Taliban into Wahabbis!.
Victorian terrorist Shane Kent is today languishing in jail awaiting sentencing for his role in the home-grown cell that planned to wage a jihad war in Melbourne. His lawyers would like you to think Kent, 32, was all talk and no action and claimed last week that sentencing judge Bernard Bongiorno should allow him to walk free from prison. One of his barristers recently claimed Kent was more a "barracker" for the terror cell run by his mentor, convicted terrorist and a Muslim cleric than an active participant. Another of Kent's lawyers has also questioned whether the cleric was a serious threat. He claimed during the cleric's trial last year that there was no concrete indication that the cleric was doing anything more than "beating his chest and rattling cages".
How would those lawyers know whether the terrorist training undertaken by Kent would turn into deadly action? How would those lawyers know if meeting al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden, as Kent did while learning the tricks of the terror trade at an Afghan training camp, would spur Kent on to do bin Laden's bidding? And would those lawyers have been prepared to be the ones to decide whether or not to arrest them rather than risk a terrorist act being committed?
It's easy for a defence barrister to say, with the benefit of hindsight and in the comfort of the courtroom, "but he didn't actually do anything". Those lawyers weren't the ones listening in real time to secretly recorded conversations between the cleric and his impressionable cell members as they discussed possible targets and the size of the bomb they might make.
Victorian and federal police were eavesdropping on the many such scary conversations and it was they who had to decide, under pressure, if lives were at risk. They had to tread the fine line between moving in to arrest too early without enough evidence to convict and waiting just that day too long and having the cleric or one of his deluded followers blow something up. If they got it wrong and waited too long the inevitable inquiry would have turned up the content of Benbrika's conversations and there would have been outrage that police knew what he was saying and didn't stop him.
So, OK, as the defence lawyers keep insisting, the cleric and Kent - and the cleric's other radical Muslim followers - didn't actually kill anybody. But are those lawyers really confident they had no intention of doing so? Bin Laden allegedly met and spoke to Kent in Afghanistan shortly before the jets flew into the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11, 2001. Police have information from witnesses that bin Laden discussed Australia with Kent and that Kent promised in bin Laden's presence to carry out violent jihad. Kent returned to Melbourne soon afterwards and began regularly seeing the cleric and his followers. Terrorism investigator Sen-Det Ben Condon told Melbourne Magistrates' Court in 2005 that Kent had used his training with al-Qaida to assist the cleric's group. "He did pledge an allegiance to Mr bin Laden," Sen-Det Condon said.
Kent converted to Islam in the mid-1990's and usually used his adopted Muslim name Yasin. He travelled to Afghanistan in 2001 to undertake terrorist training as part of a global Islamic uprising. Police have a statement from somebody who attended the al-Farooq training camp in Afghanistan at the same time as Kent. It confirms Kent met bin Laden and pledged his support. Kent's terrorist training included learning military tactics, use of explosives, topography and how to fire AK-47's and rocket-propelled grenades.
Police investigating the cleric's terrorist cell were on edge about the looming October 2004 Federal election due to snippets of information picked up on listening devices that indicated politicians might be targets. Kent was one of those involved in the taped discussion on September 27, 2004, about the election being "the best time to do something". He has pleaded guilty to being a member of a terrorist group and recklessly making a document connected with preparing a terrorist act. The document he admitted making is an al-Qaida propaganda video that glorifies the role of Muslim jihads and encourages killing in the name of Islam.
H/T GatewayPundit Background info for this video:
From August 13, 2009:
Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) apologized yesterday for accusing town hall protesters of "brown shirt tactics" and comparing them to a "lynch mob."
Baird, who originally decided against holding town hall meetings because of expected protests, now says he'll schedule some forums during the August recess.
"Frankly, I have had concerns about how we can have constructive dialogue and, unfortunately, in response to some of the things we've been seeing across the nation I have said some things myself that I regret," Baird said, according to the Tacoma News Tribune.
"I want to express that regret directly and announce that we will be holding a series of five town halls so people can express their opinions and ask questions."
Baird made headlines last week by comparing town hall protesters to Nazi guards.
"What we're seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics," Baird told the Columbian. "I mean that very seriously."
Then, he held one of those five townhall meetings on August 18 and on that day, met David Hedrick, a former Mairne.
#2
I really wonder if the Donks ever will understand the groundswell they've started. David Hedrick is righteously pissed off and that dipshit onstage isn't worth Hedrick's spit.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/23/2009 9:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"I've kept my oath, do you intend to keep yours?"
Silly rabbit. It's about power.
One set of rules for thee, another set of rules for me.
Why would you expect Congressmen to read the tome of socialized medical care when they don't even read the few pages of the Constitution? Only yahoos feel obliged by such silly rituals as oaths. /sarc
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Victorian terrorist Shane Kent is today languishing in jail awaiting sentencing for his role in the home-grown cell that planned to wage a jihad war in Melbourne. His lawyers would like you to think Kent, 32, was all talk and no action and claimed last week that sentencing judge Bernard Bongiorno should allow him to walk free from prison. One of his barristers recently claimed Kent was more a "barracker" for the terror cell run by his mentor, convicted terrorist and a Muslim cleric than an active participant. Another of Kent's lawyers has also questioned whether the cleric was a serious threat. He claimed during the cleric's trial last year that there was no concrete indication that the cleric was doing anything more than "beating his chest and rattling cages". 
