From the website of Bob McCarty, Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 2006.
As my first investigative reporting effort related to the SEALs' case, I offer six important facts about the case you're likely not to read about in the mainstream media supplied to me by a source whom I cannot name inside the Pentagon:
1) The charges or accusations against the three Navy SEALs were not made from within the SEAL community. Sources tell me they came from someone within the Navy's Master-at-Arms community.
2) The SEALs were presented with the option of going to Captain's Mast for these charges but declined this form of non-judicial punishment and opted for court-martial instead. Why? Because they did not want to be judged by those outside of the SEAL community and believed the court-martial route would assure them the representation necessary to prove their innocence.
There was speculation here to that effect when the story broke.
3) At no time did anyone within the Naval Special Warfare community have any control over these accusations or events other than providing advice or guidance to the accused SEALs.
4) The integrity of the chain of custody of the prisoner is at question.
5) There are extenuating circumstances that indicate there is questionable evidence in some of the accusations made.
6) Evidence will come out in a court-martial that might not have come out in a Captain's Mast in favor of the accused SEALs.
If true, the result will make idiots think twice before trying something like this on again. What, after all, is the penalty for someone who deliberately brings false charges of this seriousness, besides ruining one's own military career?
#5
lawyer, write it down. I will bet the balance of my retirement that a lawyer is behind this. Someone with an axe to grind or a chip on his/her/it's shoulder.
#7
There's a story making the rounds that Obama is sending a "message" to the SEALS as payback for violating his rules of engagement when rescuing the captain of the Maersk Alabama this past April. Take it with a grain of salt.
#8
Of course, next time the SEALs capture a high value target, unfortunately, the HVT will probably be killed while trying to escape. Or he will have a hidden weapon on him, and the SEALs will have to shoot him in self defense. Before they get back to base.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
12/02/2009 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I think the Seals did the right thing. Captain's Mast only requires a perponderance of evidence to find you guilty - 51%, because the penalty level is much lower than what can be received in Court Marshal. It is imminently possible that politics throughout the chain of command can influence the result of a Captain's Mass. A Court Marhsal will decided on evidence. If you are innocent, you should choose court marshal to prevent some careerist from throwing you under the bus to protect his future promotability.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
12/02/2009 23:20 Comments ||
Top||
As always in these sorts of stories, the 48 hour rule applies.
Did top Pentagon official create imaginary LLC to pad resume?
Firm Pentagon claimed aide 'served with' doesnt exist, Florida Dept. of State tells Raw Story
UPDATE: While no "Bones Theory Group" exists in Florida, Raw Story has learned that an LLC named "Bones Theory Group" was incorporated in Baltimore, Maryland on Mar. 16, 2009 under the name "PAUL W. GARDNER, II, ESQ" -- the lawyer who named Jones as a client and is representing the couple that crashed the White House state dinner.
The Maryland Public Records database KnowX says the group is still active but lists no affiliation to Michele S. Jones.
It does, however, list the corporate address as 10 Calvert St., Baltimore, Maryland -- the exact same address as Gardner's law firm. The records show that the company was registered just months before Jones was appointed as a special assistant to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
A young presidential administration besieged with vetting issues may have a new one to deal with, a Raw Story investigation has found We'll have to dismount here and proceed on foot. It's quite steep and very, very muddy.
WASHINGTON -- A traveler asks a farmer how to get to a particular village. The farmer replies, "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here." Barack Obama, who asked to be president, nevertheless deserves sympathy for having to start where America is in Afghanistan.
But after 11 months of graceless disparagements of the 43rd president, the 44th acts as though he is the first president whose predecessor bequeathed a problematic world. And Obama's second new Afghanistan policy in less than nine months strikingly resembles his predecessor's plan for Iraq, which was: As Iraq's security forces stand up, U.S. forces will stand down.
Having vowed to "finish the job," Obama revealed Tuesday that he thinks the job in Afghanistan is to get out of Afghanistan. This is an unserious policy.
Obama's surge will bring to 51,000 his Afghanistan escalation since March. Supposedly this will buy time for Afghan forces to become adequate. But it is not intended to buy much time: Although the war is in its 98th month, Obama's "Mission Accomplished" banner will be unfurled 19 months from now -- when Afghanistan's security forces supposedly will be self-sufficient. He must know this will not happen.
In a spate of mid-November interviews -- while participating in the president's protracted rethinking of policy -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described America's Afghanistan goal(s) somewhat differently. They are "to defeat al-Qaeda and its extremist allies" because "al-Qaeda and the other extremists are part of a syndicate of terror, with al-Qaeda still being an inspiration, a funder, a trainer, an equipper and director of a lot of what goes on." And: "We want to do everything we can to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda." And: "We want to get the people who attacked us." And: "We want to get al-Qaeda." And: "We are in Afghanistan because we cannot permit the return of a staging platform for terrorists."
But al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan do not number in the tens of thousands, or even thousands. Or perhaps even hundreds. Although "the people who attacked us" were al-Qaeda, the threat that justifies today's escalation is, Clinton says, a "syndicate of terror" of which al-Qaeda is just an important part. But is Afghanistan central to the syndicate?
George W. Bush waged preventive war in Iraq regarding (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction. Obama is waging preventive war in Afghanistan to prevent it from again becoming "a staging platform for terrorists," which Somalia, Yemen or other sovereignty near-vacuums also could become. To prevent the "staging platform" scenario, U.S. forces might have to be engaged in Afghanistan for decades before its government can prevent that by itself.
Before Tuesday, the administration had said (through White House spokesman Robert Gibbs) that U.S. forces will not be there "another eight or nine years." Tuesday the Taliban heard a distant U.S. trumpet sounding withdrawal beginning in 19 months. Also hearing it were Afghans who must decide whether to bet their lives on the Americans, who will begin striking their tents in July 2011, or on the Taliban, who are not going home, because they are at home.
Many Democrats, who think the $787 billion stimulus was too small and want another one (but by another name), are flinching from the $30 billion one-year cost of the Afghan surge. Considering that the GM and GMAC bailouts ($63 billion) are five times bigger than Afghanistan's GDP ($12 billion), Democrats seem to be selective worriers about deficits. Of course, their real worry is how to wriggle out of their endorsement of the "necessary" war in Afghanistan, which was a merely tactical endorsement intended to disparage the "war of choice" in Iraq.
The president's party will not support his new policy, his budget will not accommodate it, our overstretched and worn down military will be hard-pressed to execute it, and Americans' patience will not be commensurate with Afghanistan's limitless demands for it. This will not end well.
A case can be made for a serious, meaning larger and more protracted, surge. A better case can be made for a radically reduced investment of resources and prestige in that forlorn country. Obama has not made a convincing case for his tentative surgelet.
George Orwell said the quickest way to end a war is to lose it. But Obama's half-hearted embrace of a half-baked nonstrategy -- briefly feinting toward the Taliban (or al-Qaeda, or a "syndicate of terror") while lunging for the exit ramp -- makes a protracted loss probable.
#1
Just goes to show, you never know what you'll get with George Will. He'll write a stupid piece about blue jeans or a humbug piece about gift giving at Christmas, then he'll hit a grand slam like this one.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
12/02/2009 17:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The Bammer's 30,000 troops decision also means that the econ hard-pressed USA will have to spend more foreign aid &&& up front to ensure that the local AFGHAN = AFPAK GOVT-POLICE AUTHORITIES are competent to take over once the per se US drawdowns begin. RADICAL ISLAMIST MILIT GROUPS, ON THEIR PART, HAVE ALL OF ASIA'S NON-AFPAK REGIONS TO CREATE NEW MAYHEM, i.e. WESTERN CHINA + NORTHERN INDJUH + CENTRAL ASIA + RUSSIA-CAUCASUS, aka "attacking where the US = US-NATO are NOT" [Cold War].
* Armed Taliban = Islamist Militants are repor allegedly sleeping un-challenged by any inside the BARRACKS QUARTERS OF CORRUPT LOCAL POLICE WHOM ACCEPT BRIBES FROM ALL SIDES???
* Also, e.g. TOPIX/WORLD NEWS > WHERE DID ALL THE TALIBAN GO?
#1
The Sikh Empire under Ranjit Singh had no problem subjugating the Pashtun. Peshawar and other Pashtun cities are part of Pakistan now because they were under Sikh control when the British defeated them.
Today Sikhs boast that Pashtun men wear "Salwar Kameez", the dress traditionally used by women because of an edict of General Hari Singh Nalwa who forbade the Pashtun men to go outside their homes unless so dressed.
Posted by: john frum ||
12/02/2009 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
John,
I bet General Hari Singh Nalwa ROE's didn't include having to read their "Miranda Rights" to his enemy.
Just plain nuts: That's the only possible characterization for last night's presidential declaration of surrender in advance of a renewed campaign in Afghanistan.
President Obama will send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan -- but he'll "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011." Then why send them?
If you're going to tell the Taliban to be patient because we're leaving, what's the point in upping the blood ante? For what will come down to a single year by the time the troops hit the ground?
Does Obama really expect to achieve in one year what we haven't been able to do in more than eight?
Adding to the confusion, Obama qualified his timeline by insisting that "we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."
If conditions of the ground are key, why announce a pullout date?
And what did this "new strategy" come down to, otherwise? More of the same, but more: More troops, more civilians, more partnership.
Well, the troops will go, the civilians won't -- and the partnerships are a fantasy.
Our president is setting up our military to fail -- but he'll be able to claim that he gave the generals what they wanted. Failure will be their fault.
He's covering his strong-on-security flank, even as he plays to our white-flag wavers. His cynicism's worthy of a Saddam.
Obama's right about one thing, though: The Afghans "will ultimately be responsible for their own country." So why undercut them with an arbitrary timeline that doesn't begin to allow adequate time to expand and train sufficient Afghan forces? Does he really believe that young Afghans are going to line up to join the army and police knowing that we plan to abandon them in mid-2011?
Does the 2012 election ring a bell?
What messages did our president's bait-and-switch speech just send?
To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I've written off.
To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp.
To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered.
To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country.
To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).
This isn't just stupid: It's immoral. No American president has ever espoused such a worthless, self-absorbed non-strategy for his own political gratification.
On the other hand, the stage lighting and the camera angles at West Point were terrific. Our president looked good. Jaw jutting high (in his "hope" pose), he decried political partisanship -- but spent more time blaming Bush and Iraq for our Afghan problems than he spent blaming the Taliban (check it with a stop-watch).
Nor did Obama miss a single chance to praise himself, insisting that he's already transformed our relationship with the Middle East (please notify the Iranians, al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas) and that all of his dithering demonstrated wisdom.
This guy loves to hear himself talk. The last quarter of the speech was boiler-plate rhetoric that wandered off into the clouds. And that human-rights stuff? Where was that during his visits to China and Saudi Arabia? Hypocrisy, thy name is Barack.
Above all, where was the strategy? And where are the four-star resignations over a policy designed to squander American lives just to give an administration political cover?
After eight years of failure to create effective Afghan security forces and a responsible government, does anyone believe we can do it in 12 to 18 months?
"Target the insurgency"? Does that mean our soldiers will finally be permitted to go after our enemies and kill them? Nope. Those troops are going to "secure population centers." We'll be passive and let the enemy choose where and when to strike.
When fighting insurgents and terrorists, if you're not slamming them up against the wall and breaking their bones, you're losing. Obama isn't sending more troops -- he's sending more targets.
How do the Marines and soldiers slated to go to Afghanistan feel today, knowing that their commander-in-chief has already declared defeat?
By the time Obama finally got to Pakistan -- the refuge of evil -- he was spouting pure nonsense: "We are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust." But our interests diverge, we don't respect each other and we certainly don't trust each other.
Sounded good, though.
Mr. President, how can you send our troops to war without backing them all the way? How could you pull the strategic rug out from under them in advance? Why did you reassure the Taliban that we've already fixed a sell-by date? What's the bloody point?
At West Point last night, President Obama's delivery was superb. But what he was delivering was a funeral oration for his promised strategy.
No one is going to argue with US President Barack ObamaĀs decision to back a military surge strategy for Afghanistan by sending an extra 30,000 troops, or for demanding that the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai do more to assume responsibility for running the country. But his insistence that he will order a withdrawal of American troops to commence in just 18 months is another matter entirely.
It would be unworthy of me to suggest that Mr Obama, by starting the withdrawal in the summer of 2011, will be well-placed to seek re-election in the 2012 presidential campaign. Even so, to believe that this deeply complex and challenging conflict can be turned around in just 18 months is wildly optimistic, if not naĆÆve.
After eight years of fighting, the Taliban remain as potent a force as ever, even though they have suffered significant casualties. I suspect the Taliban and their allies will be prepared to continue the war safe in the knowledge that in July 2011 the bulk of the enemy will pack up and return home.
There is also the question of the impact the presidentĀs comments will have on our regional allies, most notably the governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both Islamabad and Kabul will now be calculating whether it is worth supporting the Nato effort if its main military backer is already planning an exit strategy.
All the people I talked to on the ground the last time I was in Kabul earlier this year Ā diplomats, politicians, generals Ā agreed it will take a generation or more to get Afghanistan back on its feet. If Mr Obama thinks he can work his special presidential magic and sort it out in just 18 months, then good luck to him.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/02/2009 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
One of the odd aspects of the now-deflating housing bubble was the assumption that demand would keep on rising, apart from interest rates and lending policies. I kept waiting to hear about the counter force presented by the impending mass retirement of the baby boomers and the likelihood that they would try to sell their larger homes or second/vacation homes. Even if they were assumed to then buy a smaller retirement home, the net is an expected large amount of residential square footage on the market for over a decade. Birth and marriage rates don't come close to balancing that out.
#6
I bought my home in 1990 for $65,000. We started paying ahead on the principle in 1994, and continue today. So instead of having another eleven years to pay, we have 6 1/2. Housing prices on homes in my neighborhood peaked in 2008 at $185,000. Today the going rate is between $135,000 and $150,000. That's because there are 8000 more military slated to move to Fort Carson and the Air Force installations here. Otherwise, prices would be in the low $100k range
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/02/2009 23:29 Comments ||
Top||
ĀI just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,Ā said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.
#4
...for a permit to buy a pistol....if there is a populist uprising against the bank.
Well, I guess it'll work if you want to save the last bullet for yourself. However, I think the populi will be armed with something bigger and with longer range than a pistol. Unlike the patrician class, the populi have those in their ranks that know how to operate in fire teams and small unit tactics for which an individual pistol ain't going to help you and your likes much.
#6
If there's a general breakdown of order such as they fear, for the most part they'll be extracting the smokeless powder from their cartridges to start fires with to keep warm.
Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.
One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech would be well-received.
Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.
One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech.
Ouch.
It was the least truthful address that he has ever held.
Oucher.
He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.
Ouchest. I think it's safe to say Spiegel no longer loves the man they wished they could help vote into office a year ago.
An additional 30,000 US soldiers are to march into Afghanistan -- and then they will march right back out again. America is going to war -- and from there it will continue ahead to peace. It was the speech of a Nobel War Prize laureate.
The noble Duke of York
He had 10,000 men
He marched them up to the top of a hill
Then marched them down again.
Just in Time for the Campaign
For each troop movement, Obama had a number to match. US strength in Afghanistan will be tripled relative to the Bush years, a fact that is sure to impress hawks in America. But just 18 months later, just in time for Obama's re-election campaign, the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free.
The speech continued in that vein. It was as though Obama had taken one of his old campaign speeches and merged it with a text from the library of ex-President George W. Bush. Extremists kill in the name of Islam, he said, before adding that it is one of the "world's great religions." He promised that responsibility for the country's security would soon be transferred to the government of President Hamid Karzai -- a government which he said was "corrupt." The Taliban is dangerous and growing stronger. But "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars," he added.
It was a dizzying combination of surge and withdrawal, of marching to and fro. The fast pace was reminiscent of plays about the French revolution: Troops enter from the right to loud cannon fire and then they exit to the left. And at the end, the dead are left on stage.
Obama's Magic No Longer Works
But in this case, the public was more disturbed than entertained. Indeed, one could see the phenomenon in a number of places in recent weeks: Obama's magic no longer works. The allure of his words has grown weaker.
It is not he himself who has changed, but rather the benchmark used to evaluate him. For a president, the unit of measurement is real life. A leader is seen by citizens through the prism of their lives -- their job, their household budget, where they live and suffer. And, in the case of the war on terror, where they sometimes die.
Political dreams and yearnings for the future belong elsewhere. That was where the political charmer Obama was able to successfully capture the imaginations of millions of voters. It is a place where campaigners -- particularly those with a talent for oration -- are fond of taking refuge. It is also where Obama set up his campaign headquarters, in an enormous tent called "Hope."
Germans do not, as a rule, like or trust charmers. They believe that charmers have no substance.
In his speech on America's new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.
The American president doesn't need any opponents at the moment. He's already got himself.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/02/2009 18:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
OK, I realised years ago that I saw the world differently from most.
I think he's making sure "Bush's" war is a dismal flop, and destroying both troop morale and willingness to fight, as well as making it as near impossible as possible for any "Next" President to undo his deliberate Damage and restart fighting.
Seems plain to me.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/02/2009 21:14 Comments ||
Top||
We have now reached the stage of the health-care debate when all that matters is getting a bill passed, so all news is good news, more subsidies mean lower deficits, and more expensive insurance is really cheaper insurance. The nonpolitical mind reels.
Consider how Washington received the Congressional Budget Office's study Monday of how Harry Reid's Senate bill will affect insurance costs, which by any rational measure ought to have been a disaster for the bill. CBO found that premiums in the individual market will rise by 10% to 13% more than if Congress did nothing. Family policies under the status quo are projected to cost $13,100 on average, but under ObamaCare will jump to $15,200.
Fabulous news!
"No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums Is Seen in Study," said the New York Times, while the Washington Post declared, "Senate Health Bill Gets a Boost." The White House crowed that the CBO report was "more good news about what reform will mean for families struggling to keep up with skyrocketing premiums under the broken status quo."
Finance Chairman Max Baucus chimed in from the Senate floor that "Health-care reform is fundamentally about lowering health-care costs. Lowering costs is what health-care reform is designed to do, lowering costs; and it will achieve this objective."
Except it won't. CBO says it expects employer-sponsored insurance costs to remain roughly in line with the status quo, yet even this is a failure by Mr. Baucus's and the White House's own standards. Meanwhile, fixing the individual market--which is expensive and unstable largely because it does not enjoy the favorable tax treatment given to job-based coverage--was supposed to be the whole purpose of "reform."
Instead, CBO is confirming that new coverage mandates will drive premiums higher. But Democrats are declaring victory, claiming that these higher insurance prices don't count because they will be offset by new government subsidies. About 57% of the people who buy insurance through the bill's new "exchanges" that will supplant today's individual market will qualify for subsidies that cover about two-thirds of the total premium.
So the bill will increase costs but it will then disguise those costs by transferring them to taxpayers from individuals. Higher costs can be conjured away because they're suddenly on the government balance sheet. The Reid bill's $371.9 billion in new health taxes are also apparently not a new cost because they can be passed along to consumers, or perhaps will be hidden in lost wages.
This is the paleoliberal school of brute-force wealth redistribution, and a very long way from the repeated White House claims that reform is all about "bending the cost curve." The only thing being bent here is the budget truth.
Moreover, CBO is almost certainly underestimating the cost increases. Based on its county-by-county actuarial data, the insurer WellPoint has calculated that Mr. Baucus's bill would cause some premiums to triple in the individual market. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association came to similar conclusions.
One reason is community rating, which forces insurers to charge nearly uniform rates regardless of customer health status or habits. CBO doesn't think this will have much of an effect, but costs inevitably rise when insurers aren't allowed to price based on risk. This is why today some 35 states impose no limits on premium variation and six allow wide differences among consumers.
The White House decided to shoot messengers like WellPoint to avoid rebutting their message. But Amanda Kowalski of MIT, William Congdon of the Brookings Institution and Mark Showalter of Brigham Young have found similar results. In a 2008 paper in the peer-reviewed Forum for Health Economics and Policy, these economists found that state community rating laws raise premiums in the individual market by 20.9% to 33.1% for families and 10.2% to 17.1% for singles. In New Jersey, which also requires insurers to accept all comers (so-called guaranteed issue), premiums increased by as much as 227%.
The political tragedy is that there are plenty of reform alternatives that really would reduce the cost of insurance. According to CBO, the relatively modest House GOP bill would actually reduce premiums by 5% to 8% in the individual market in 2016, and by 7% to 10% for small businesses. The GOP reforms would also do so without imposing huge new taxes.
But Democrats don't care because their bill isn't really about "lowering costs." It's about putting Washington in charge of health insurance, at any cost.
#2
Is it true that President O-no fears people talking about 1. his looking like Mr. Spock, the unemotional, uncaring, cold, alien on Star Trek, and fears people talking about how President O-no spends your money like monopoly money?
Curious to a politician who wears faith on his sleeve, ex-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has engaged in Pilate-like hand washing over commuting the prison sentence of cop killer Maurice Clemmons.
We've received a Huckabee statement blaming "a series of errors in the criminal justice system," and heard a Fox News interview in which the would-be president denounced "Washington judges" and talked about police making errors in paperwork.
"It's not your fault governor . . . I'm not saying it's your fault. I don't think anybody watching thinks it's your fault," cooed interviewer/enabler Bill O'Reilly.
So hard it is to face the truth. Maurice Clemmons would still be in an Arkansas prison cell, and four Lakewood police officers would be alive, but for Huckabee's actions.
Convicted rapist Wayne DuMond would not have raped and killed a woman had he not been paroled 11 months before the crime. Of course, Huckabee blamed the governor who preceded him, and the state parole board that he appointed.
The episode raises discomforting questions about public life in America.
Does anybody ever accept responsibility on the spot? Almost never! The pattern is to wait for years until there's a book to sell, such as ex-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's memoir-driven confession that "we were terribly, terribly wrong" about Vietnam.
Are senior officials held to account?
The foreign secretary in Britain's cabinet, Lord Carrington, resigned immediately after Argentina occupied the Falkland Islands. He gave a direct, honest explanation: It happened on my watch, so I am responsible.
Over here, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld botched the Iraq War and occupation, yet hung on until he was fired after the 2006 election. Vice President Dick Cheney stayed on the Republicans' 2004 ticket despite his lies about weapons of mass destruction, and prediction that Iraqis would greet us as "liberators."
Nor, except in very rare cases, does anybody resign on principle.
Did any senior Clinton aide quit in protest at the president's private (and public) lies about his relationship with "that woman" Monica Lewinsky?
The most we can expect is, in a phrase made famous during Watergate, "the modified limited hangout route." Huckabee is traveling down this road, saying of the Clemmons commutation: "It's not something I'm happy about at this particular moment."
One more point, illustrated by O'Reilly's worshipful treatment of Huckabee and lying about the terms of Clemmons' bail: Ideology-driven media organizations, such as Fox, will airbrush rather than pursue malfeasance when it happens on their side of the fence.
It wasn't always so.
As President Richard Nixon fell to the self-inflicted wounds of Watergate, such Republicans as Sens. Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott — and Washington Attorney General Slade Gorton — behaved with honor and helped propel his exit from office. Conservative New York Times columnist William Safire was relentless in probing the tacky side of the Clinton presidency. He was, however, equally unsparing in exposing Bush I blunders that persuaded Iraq's Saddam Hussein that he had a free hand to invade Kuwait.
Nowadays, we have blatant double standards. Not long ago, a debunking discussion on Sean Hannity's Fox show centered on the fact that Al Gore travels by private jet.
Viewers of the "fair and balanced" network likely will never learn that Sarah Palin's "bus tour" to promote her book has included flights on a $4,000-per-hour Gulfstream 2 private jet. It's how the "hockey mom" arrived in the Tri-Cities for Thanksgiving.
Huckabee issued more than 1,000 commutations and pardons during 10 years as governor of Arkansas.
Within six months of Huckabee's commutation, Clemmons violated conditions of parole, and was sent back to prison in 2001 for aggravated robbery. He was paroled again by the state of Arkansas in 2004.
'Can't blame that on "Washington judges."
A county prosecutor in Arkansas, Robert Herzfeld, wrote Huckabee arguing that his clemency policy was "fatally flawed" — and would later sue to overturn a Huckabee decision to set free a murderer who bludgeoned his victim.
The reply to his letter came from Huckabee's chief of staff: "The governor read your letter and laughed out loud. He wanted me to respond to you. I wish you success as you cut down on your caffeine consumption."
Instead of buck passing on Fox News, Mike Huckabee and Bill O'Reilly should donate their book royalty bucks to help the nine children who lost parents when Maurice Clemmons opened fire on Sunday morning.
Last night, President Obama delivered an historic speech to the nation and to the world on his plans for Afghanistan. Here, in sum, is what the president said:
I really don't want to be commander-in-chief, but I'll do it if I have to -- at least for a little while, and then we'll see. Just so long as it doesn't cost too much, or take too long, or interfere with my plans to nationalize healthcare and fundamentally change America.... Go read it all. The clothes have no emperor.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/02/2009 10:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
On the eve of the unveiling of the nation's new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting "weakness" to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits.
In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president's "agonizing" about Afghanistan strategy "has consequences for your forces in the field."
"I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small 'p' political reasons, where he's trying to balance off different competing groups in society," Cheney said.
"Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they've been asked to do?"
Obama administration officials have complained ever since taking office that they face a series of unpalatable -- if not impossible -- national security decisions in Afghanistan and Pakistan because of the Bush administration's unwavering insistence on focusing on Iraq.
But Cheney rejected any suggestion that Obama had to decide on a new strategy for Afghanistan because the one employed by the previous administration failed.
Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. "I basically don't," he replied without elaborating.
Obama will announce a troop buildup in Afghanistan in a speech Tuesday at West Point, and he's expected to send at least 30,000 more U.S. troops to the country. The White House also has said that Obama will outline a general time frame for the United States to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan.
But Cheney said the average Afghan citizen "sees talk about exit strategies and how soon we can get out, instead of talk about how we win.
"Those folks ... begin to look for ways to accommodate their enemies," Cheney said. "They're worried the United States isn't going to be there much longer and the bad guys are."
During the interview, Cheney laced his concerns with a broader critique of Obama's foreign and national security policy, saying Obama's nuanced and at times cerebral approach projects "weakness" and that the president is looking "far more radical than I expected."
"Here's a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing," Cheney said. "I think our adversaries -- especially when that's preceded by a deep bow ... -- see that as a sign of weakness."
Specifically, Cheney said the Justice Department decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, in New York City is "great" for Al Qaeda.
"One of their top people will be given the opportunity -- courtesy of the United States government and the Obama administration -- to have a platform from which they can espouse this hateful ideology that they adhere to," he said. "I think it's likely to give encouragement -- aid and comfort -- to the enemy."
Posted by: ed ||
12/02/2009 00:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I like Dick Cheney even more than Obama used the word 'I' in his speech last night. There is no doubt whose side he is on.
IT IS a mistake to think that the state works within the boundaries of laws. The public does not obey laws. It obeys rules within the boundaries of a triangle, the first side of which is the law. But the triangle has two other sides: common sense and ethics.
What if the Knesset passed a law requiring drivers to drive in reverse all winter? That would counter the logic side of the triangle. The public's subsequent refusal would be the fault of the government, not of the public.
In other words, the fact that we obey the law is not because of the law itself, but because it is logical enough to warrant our adherence.
The third side of the triangle is ethics. If the government ordered us to drive our elderly and infirm out onto the frozen tundra, as per Eskimo custom, we might agree that it would logically enhance the economy. But nobody would obey, because it would be patently immoral. The party at fault for the insubordination would be the government that enacted the law and not the citizens who refused to obey. Now, why did he think of that example?
How are the boundaries of this triangle determined?
A government has unlimited power to enact and enforce laws. The government, with its Knesset majority, can enact a law that would postpone elections for 50 years. Why doesn't it do so?
For only one reason: Because it knows that the public would not accept it and the government would subsequently lose its credibility. In other words, just like Exupery's king, the government enacts laws within the boundaries that it assumes the public will accept, both logically and ethically.
Power always strives for more power and the government will always attempt to test the boundaries of common sense and ethicality. But fortunately, it is not the government that determines these boundaries, but the public. How does the public accomplish this? By using its right and sometimes its duty to refuse to obey the law. That is how the logical and ethical platform for the healthy functioning of society is created.
To increase its power, the government tries to convince us that insubordination will cause the state to collapse. But that is completely false.
The greatest crimes in human history were perpetrated when citizens ignored their duty to delineate logical and ethical boundaries for the rule of law. The societies in which this took place by and large collapsed.
In the past few weeks, soldiers from two separate units in the IDF expressed their civic responsibility by refusing to obey orders to expel Jews from their homes. These brave young men are positioned to save Israel from collapse. Let me add that for decades Lefist elites been cheering IDF soldiers refusing legal orders that conflicted with their Leftist (EU funded) sensibilities.
#1
A government has unlimited power to enact and enforce laws. The government, with its Knesset majority, can enact a law that would postpone elections for 50 years. Why doesn't it do so?
The author stepped into it big time right there. Such a government is a dictatorship. A republic such as ours sets limits upon government. Our government is in serious caca right now because it's decided it's going to operate on the statement at the top of this, rather than try to govern as past presidents have. The wheels have already come off the current administration and the Congress enabling it, and they're at the top of a very tall, steep mountain. The slippery brown stuff they keep spewing will make the trip to the bottom even faster.
The IDF is loyal to the State of Israel. They do not question the legitimacy of their government because it is pretty regularly in accord with the founding documents of the Jewish State. This person knows far too little about what he's expounding on so loudly.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/02/2009 23:43 Comments ||
Top||
As the Congress prepared to vote to let us enter the world of waits for doctors, waits for specialists, waits for testing and waits for surgery, radiation and chemo, we should pause to consider the relative records of the private medical care system in the United States with the socialized system in the U.K.
In 2008, Britain had a cancer death rate 0.25% while the United States had a rate of only 0.18%. The UK cancer death rate was 38% higher than in the United States.
The Guardian, the UK's left wing daily, estimated that "up to 10,000 people" are dying each year of cancer "because their condition is diagnosed too late, according to research by the government's director of cancer services." While many people die because of late detection due to their own negligence, there is no reason to believe this self-neglect is more common in the UK than in the US.
In Canada, the cancer death rate is 16% higher than in the United States. Undoubtedly due the high rate of unnecessary colonoscopy, mammogram, and pap smear procedures that our enlightened government has been warning us about of late.
#1
Don't worry. If ObamaCare passes, the differential between the US and the UK will soon disappear.
Of course, it won't be because the UK death rate drops.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
12/02/2009 18:05 Comments ||
Top||
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.
Just plain nuts: That's the only possible characterization for last night's presidential declaration of surrender in advance of a renewed campaign in Afghanistan. 
No one is going to argue with US President Barack ObamaĀs decision to back a military surge strategy for Afghanistan by sending an extra 30,000 troops, or for demanding that the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai do more to assume responsibility for running the country. But his insistence that he will order a withdrawal of American troops to commence in just 18 months is another matter entirely.
Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.
John R. Guardiano, American Spectator
On the eve of the unveiling of the nation's new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting "weakness" to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits.
