In Britain, if the Prime Minister is hit with a no confidence vote, the immediate response is a resignation and a call for elections.   Barack Obama got a no confidence vote from the United States House of Representatives.  What is more shocking is that over half of the Democratic Caucus voted against Obama.  I am still doing some research, but I believe this is unprecedented.  Even Nixon, at his worst, did not have this happen.  There have been several times when congress was furious with a U.S. President.  Democrats wanted to demand that George Bush surrender in Iraq and start withdrawing troops.  But while they huffed and puffed about it, they never came close to passing this kind of resolution. 

 This is very damaging to Obama and potentially even more damaging to the United States of America.  The problem is that the U.S. Congress just told the world that they do not trust Obama’s ability to make foreign policy decisions.

The War Powers Act was passed in 1973, over the veto of Richard Nixon.  Every subsequent President has felt that the law was unconstitutional.  However, prior to Obama, no President was willing to push the envelope far enough to bring this to a head.  Some Presidents, particularly Bill Clinton, ordered troops into combat for long periods of time without consulting congress.  Although Democrats like to pretend that George Bush conducted an illegal war, the opposite is true.  Bush went to congress and received bi-partisan authorization for his efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Democrats made a lot of noise, but they never even tried to force a vote to withdraw that authorization.

Republicans are far more hesitant than Democrats to challenge a President with regard to the War Powers Act.  That is because Republicans believe that partisanship should end at the nation’s borders.  Challenging a President with regard to military actions has typically been the exclusive turf of the liberal Democrats.  That is still true today, with Dennis Kucinich drafting a far stronger resolution than the one introduced by John Boehner.   John Boehner may even have introduced his resolution as a last-ditch effort to allow Obama one last chance to avoid a constitutional challenge.  The following article by the Christian Science Monitor is excellent:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0603/Libya-vote-How-Speaker-Boehner-preserved-GOP-unity-and-US-NATO-ties

No matter how this turns out, it is a serious blow to the Obama Presidency.  He now has two choices.  He can come to congress with hat in hand, or he is likely to be facing a serious and immediate constitutional crisis.  It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court sitting this one out, and Obama may have more to fear from the liberal justices than the conservative justices.  The implications are enormous if the War Powers Act is declared unconstitutional.   If it is constitutional, the President just deliberately violated the constitution.

Other Presidents were far too smart to get boxed into this kind of corner.  Instead, they reached out to congress and, without admitting the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, they yielded enough to keep congress happy.  Obama has done the exact opposite.  He publicly defied congress and said he did not want or need their approval.  That angered people in both parties.

This was very unnecessary.  Obama had support for what he was doing in Libya.  He would have gotten more support from Republicans than from Democrats.  They just wanted him to at least pretend to consult them.  But Obama is so arrogant that he decided to just thumb his nose at congress.

Perhaps Obama will get lucky and take out Ghadafi within the next 14 days.  But if I were advising Ghadafi, I would tell him that if he just hunkers down in the deepest bunker for two weeks Obama will have to quit.  I think the odds of getting Ghadafi just went way down.  The only exit strategy I can imagine is for Obama is to find some excuse to declare victory, give a great speech patting himself on the back, then quickly shut down combat operations.  But if Ghadafi is still in power, that will be very difficult.  Our NATO allies have to be furious with Obama.

 The main stream media is ignoring this story, but that will change dramatically in a short period of time if congress invokes the War Powers Act and forces a constitutional crisis.

 TDM

Some of you are probably concerned that according to the main stream media, Obama is coasting toward re-election.  CNN recently reported a poll allegedly showing that Obama now has a 54% approval rating.  At the same time they are dismissing the field of Republican Presidential candidates as weak and uninteresting.

The truth is quite the opposite.  Obama is in serious trouble and unless something changes, he has little chance of re-election.  You don’t have to take my word for it, just read the “real” information in that same CNN story:

 The poll, which asked about Obama’s job on 11 issues, showed that his approval rating was higher than 50 percent on just three items: terrorism (65 percent), Afghanistan (55 percent) and Iraq (54 percent).

His four weakest areas were gas prices (25 percent), the deficit (34 percent), health care (40 percent) and the economy (41 percent).

Obama’s approval rating is only high in areas where he continues to follow policies originated by George Bush.  In every other area, his job performance is being panned by the American people.  Every possible Republican candidate for President will get higher ratings than Obama with regard to terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq.  No amount of main stream media spin can change that simple reality.

The following article from the UK Telegraph does a good analysis of Obama’s serious disconnect with the American people.  Unfortunately, very few U.S. News organization are capable of this kind of reporting and analysis.  Even Fox News seems to be afraid to tell the truth about Obama:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100090356/why-barack-obama-may-be-heading-for-electoral-disaster-in-2012/

What is obviously true is obviously true! 

At some point, even the main stream media is going to be forced to deal with the truth about Obama.  Someone just sent me the following.  First is the statement from George Bush after the capture of Saddam Hussein.  The second is the statement from Barack Obama after the death of Osama bin Laden:

George W. Bush speech after capture of Saddam:

The success of yesterday’s mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq.  The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people.  Their work continues, and so do the risks.  Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate ’em.

The only reference Bush made to himself was to say:  “I thank….”

Barack Obama speech after killing of bin Laden:

And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.  Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden.  It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground.  I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan.  And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.  Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Obama was so busy patting himself on the back that he almost forgot to thank the Navy Seals.  The contrast between the characters of the two men could not be starker.

The problem facing this country today is that if we are unable to discern the difference between a George Bush and a Barack Obama, then we are doomed as a nation.  Many people were fooled because Barack Obama is a good actor and he effectively played the role of a President on TV.   In this case, he didn’t even do a good job of acting like a President.   The truth is obvious to those willing to see.     

 I remember Alan Colmes and Sean Hannity having an amazing conversation on television shortly after 9-11.  Anyone familiar with Alan Colmes knows that he is a full-fledged liberal KoolAid drinker who rarely has a rational comment about anything.  But on this night, while Colmes was still badly shaken by 9-11, he said, “I’m glad George Bush is President of the United States.”  He never came close to saying that again, and I am sure he would deny having ever said it.  But he did, and I remember watching it happen.

George Bush, despite all the negative coverage in the press, is a real leader.  Barack Obama, despite all the fawning coverage in the press, is not.  I think the American people already know that.  Eventually, even CNN will figure it out.

TDM

Congressman Anthony Weiner was always a whiner and is apparently a wiener.  This is the guy who hypervented on national TV about how all those mean and nasty Republicans wouldn’t vote to approve benefits for 9-11 emergency responders.  CNN and the rest of the main stream media failed to notice that Democrats had overwhelming control of congress at the time and could have passed this without a single Republican vote.  The reason Republicans and those Democrats with remaining brain cells blocked this bill was that liberal Democrats had loaded it up with pork.

But now Weiner was caught with his pants down, or at least with his underwear showing.  There are reports that he send a lewd picture of himself to a 21 year old “friend.”  I don’t know if Weiner did this or not, but when challenged by CNN today he looked guilty as sin.  He gave a lengthy and convoluted explanation as to why he couldn’t answer the following question:  “did you send that lewd picture from your twitter account.”  Weiner wiggled, waffled and weaved in a painful attempt to avoid answering with a simple yes or no.  It was so bad that even CNN noticed.  Then they asked why the recently married congressman was following a 21 year old female on twitter.  Good question!

I am not sure Weiner survives this, not because Democrats really care about minor issues like personal morality, but because he just looked so pathetic in handling it.  It will be really hard for anyone to take him seriously after this fiasco.

Last year, CNN was literally replaying his speech comparing him to Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith goes to Washington.  At the time they ignored the fact that he was lying and screaming utter nonsense.  In the minds of the main stream media, bad mouthing Republicans always deserves recognition.

Now, they are laughing at him.  Sometimes, what goes around comes around.  When it does, it is important to sit back, watch and enjoy.

TDM

Rod Blagojevich is testifying in his own trial and it is high theater.  The man got elected governor because in a one-on-one setting he is a very charming guy.  When he was on Celebrity Apprentice, he was our favorite contestant, because he was just plain fun to watch.  He was worthless, of course, and I wouldn’t trust him with a two-dollar bill, but he was hysterical to watch.

This is an extremely dangerous case for the Obama administration, and the entire Chicago political machine.  The following article from the Washington Examiner explains one problem:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/wheres-tony-rezko

But the problem is bigger than this.  The problem is that Rod Blagojevich is, well, Rod Blagojevich.  This is the guy who, by his own admission, barely graduated from law school and isn’t exactly the brightest bulb in the bunch.  The Prosecutor and the main stream media have been trying to paint him as this uniquely evil genius who tried to circumvent justice by selling a U.S. Senate Seat.   Everyone else, including Obama, is portrayed as innocent doves caught in the snare of the evil villain.

 In some ways it is pretty hard to deny that Blagojevich is guilty since he definitely wanted “something” big in exchange for that highly coveted appointment to the Senate.  Who can blame him?  An appointment to the United States Senate is a big deal.  That is how Lisa Murkowski got in the United States Senate.  Her daddy, Governor of Alaska, appointed her.  There are other cases where the wife of a deceased Senator was appointed to replace her husband.  There are even cases where the Governor appointed himself.  Perhaps the most obviously corrupt case was the Ted Kennedy seat in Massachusetts.  When Mitt Romney was Governor, Democrats passed a law denying him the ability to appoint a Senator.  Instead, they had to wait for a special election.  Democrats were terrified at the prospect of Romney replacing a Ted Kennedy or a John Kerry with a Republican.   But when Ted Kennedy died, there was a Democratic Governor, Deval Patrick, and Obama desperately needed another vote in the Senate.  So the Democrats re-wrote the law to allow Obama’s BFF to immediately appoint Paul Kirk, a dependable Democrat.  Kirk then rushed to Washington, DC, to promptly cast the deciding vote for Obama care.  Now that is selling a Senate Seat!

In this case, Rod Blagojevich was Governor of Illinois and Barack Obama’s Senate seat was conveniently vacant.  That meant Blagojevich got to choose the replacement.  The Prosecutor will have us believe that Blagojevich tried to sell this by stopping people on the street and asking them if they wanted to buy a used Senate Seat.  (Actually, it was barely used).  The opposite is true.  The biggest problem for Blagojevich was trying to pare down the long list of people who wanted to buy that seat, one way or another.  Rahm Emanuel testified that the Obama administration had no real preference.  Really?  Blagojevich said Obama wanted Valerie Jarrett.  Who’s more credible on that one?  Odds are very high that one of the highest priorities given to Rahm Emanuel was to “help” Blagojevich make the right decision regarding this open Senate Seat and that continued right up until someone realized the prosecutors were wire tapping Blagojevich.  Then everyone tried to back away and pretend they weren’t really interested.   Everyone knows Jesse Jackson, Jr. flat out tried to buy the seat.  His testimony to the contrary earlier this week is about as believable as Arnold Schwarzenegger explaining why he was faithful to his wife.  I’m surprised anyone could listen to this testimony without snickering. 

The problem with this trial is that while Blagojevich is probably as guilty as sin, he was hardly the only fish swimming in this cesspool.  In most cases, Prosecutors hold off on the little guys, like Blagojevich, and go after the big guys, like Rahm Emanuel or even Obama.  When the Prosecutors focus solely on the minnow in the corner of the fish tank, while ignoring the sharks circling in the middle, odds are more than a Senate seat was for sale.

So, here’s the deal:   Blago is blabbing about the Senate Seat grabbing and the media spin is quickly unrav’lin.   Enjoy the ride.

TDM

Obama is claiming his announced major change in U.S. policy toward Israel is no real change at all.  In some ways he is right, at least with regard to Democratic Presidents.  Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had the same failed strategy to achieve peace in the Middle East.  Enormous pressure is put on Israel to give up concession after concession, to which the Arabs offer nothing in return.  Bill Clinton talked Israel into giving up almost everything.  But Arafat turned down the deal because he would not committ to the existence of a Jewish state.  He was also commited to his terrorist activities.  This was never really about borders or even a Palestinian homeland.  One must study history to understand the problems in the Middle East.  The following is the map of the British Mandate for Palestine.  This is what it looked like prior to World War I:

After the end of World War I, it had changed to the following:

Note what is missing.  There there were no real countries in the Middle East.  The current maps of all those countries in the Middle East today do not represent historical nations.  Palestine is not a race or even a religion, it is a place.  Prior to World War II there were few people in the whole area, and these included Arabs, Christians and Jews.  All of them called themselves Palestinians which means someone from Palestine.

Then, in 1947, the following borders were drawn by the UN.

As you can see, the Arabs got the biggest chunks of real estate.  The Jews got next to nothing.  Since all of Transjordan was given to the Arabs, they ended up with over 80% of the British Mandate for Palestine.  The Jews were happy with the deal, they were glad to get anything, but the Arabs were outraged.  They didn’t want the Jews to even exist.  Almost as soon as this decision was announced, the Arabs attacked in force and tried to destroy Israel.  Although out-numbered, and with little outside support from anyone, including the United States, the nation of Israel beat back the Arab invaders and actually gained terrritory.

In 1967, the Arabs attacked again and got whipped again.  Following is the map following the six day war in 1967:

The pattern with each war against Israel was the same.  There was no call for a cease fire, as long as the Arabs were winning.  But when Israel started to win, there were immediate calls for a cease fire.  The U.S. typically delayed supporting the cease fire to gain Israel a little time. 

Note:  Israel latter gave up the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for peace with Egypt.  They were rewarded with Hamas taking over Gaza and using it as a base for terrorist attacks on Israel.  As the old saying goes:  “no good deed goes unpunished.”

The concept of Palestinians being forced out of their natural homeland is a myth.  The Jews were more than willing to let the Palestinian Arabs stay and live in freedom.  But it was the Arabs who demanded the Palestinian Arabs leave Israel, while at the same time, making it clear that they weren’t wanted anywhere else.  That is the “Palestinians” have been living in refugee camps for decades. The Arabs want them there to use them as an excuse to destroy Israel. 

 Netanyahu explained this to the U.S. congress in a clear and unambiguous speech:

 our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state; it’s always been about the existence of the Jewish state…

 He reminded everyone that Israel, unlike any other nation, is fighting for its very survival:

Now, as for Israel, if history has taught the Jewish people anything, it is that we must take calls for our destruction seriously.

 Then Netanyahu said all that is necessary to start the process of peace is the following: 

 It’s time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say, “I will accept a Jewish state.”

George W. Bush understood that.  That is why he refused to negotiate with Yassar Arafat.  What was the point?  Bush told Arafat he would not ask Israel for any concessions until Arafat agreed to the existence of a Jewish State and agreed to stop terrorism.  History shows us that as a result, George W. Bush probably got more real concessions from the Arabs than anyone else.  But, ultimately, the Arabs, other than Egypt and Jordan, have never been willing to accept the existence of a Jewish State.  Egypt signed a peace treat in 1979 and Jordan signed one in 1994.  Now, thanks to the brilliant handling of the uprising in Egypt, by Obama, that has changed.  Egypt just opened up the border with Gaza, which means they have opened up the supply routes to Hamas.  The odds of a war has just increased exponentially. 

Netanyahu got it right.  The proposal of Obama to redraw the borders is utter nonsense.  Until the Arabs agree to accept a Jewish State, nothing else could possibly matter. 

There are several reports that Netanyahu chewed out Obama when they met in the White House.  But, as always, the liberal left totally missed the point.  Juan Williams talked about this incident and expressed outrage that Netanyahu did not show sufficient respect for Obama.  But, if Netanyahu was telling the truth, then he believes that the survival of Israel is at stake.  Apparently Juan Williams thinks that showing proper respect for Obama should be more important to Netanyahu than Israels own survival.  I doubt may Jews agree.  What’s another holocaust, really, compared to embarrassing the annointed one by pointed out his stupidity?

The only good news is that finally the liberal Jews in congress are showing signs of standing up to Obama.  I have always wondered why anyone who is Jewish would support obviously anti-semitics like Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carte and Barack Obama.  Hillary Clinton sat on a stage and listened to Yassar Arafat make lies about Israeli atrocities and said absolutely nothing.  Jimmy Carter has been openly hostile toward Israel.  No Jew in his right mind should trust Obama with regard to a confrontation with Islam.  I suspect that a lot of liberals Jews are saying:  “with friends like this, who needs enemies.”

This is more serious than you think.  It is hurting Obama more than you can imagine.  At best, he looks incompetent.  At worse……?

TDM

I have been trying to figure out what is so wrong with the way Obama handled the killing of Osama bin Laden.  This should have been his shining moment.  Much of the country rejoiced at the news.  Republicans feared this great victory would propel Obama to an easy re-election.  However, that has not happened.  I wondered why?

Obama immediately set about on a campaign to make sure he got all of the credit.  The Navy Seals were told to keep their mouths shut, while the people representing Obama had diarrhea of the mouth.  In their rush to make sure Obama got all the credit, they released information that damaged our national security.  The response was disorganized and clumsy, but I don’t think that is the real problem.  I think the real problem is Obama himself. I believe this incident exposed a lack of character.

President Obama authorized the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. It is hard to criticize that decision, because most of us think it was a necessary decision.  We expect, a President to make the difficult decisions.  Sometimes those decisions result in the loss of human life.  But there is more to the story.   

I suspect that the Navy Seal who actually shot Osama bin Laden is glad he did his duty, but he is not bragging about it.  He probably doesn’t even want to talk about this, other than with his fellow Seals who understand how he feels.  The people who protect us don’t do so because they like killing people, they do so because it is their duty and because sometimes it is necessary.  Harry Truman ordered the use of atomic bomb against Japan, but he didn’t brag about it.  He believed this was the right decision and he never wavered from the responsibility for making that decision, but it was obvious that the enormity of this weighed on him.

That is what is wrong with Obama.  He does not appear to have the slightest moral qualm about this.  That is why he is so willing to talk and talk and talk about it.  The equivalent would be for the Governor who signed the death certificate authorizing an execution to go around bragging about it:  “Yup.  I was the one who signed Ted Bundy’s death certificate, just like I promised.”

There is also a big difference between:  “wanted dead or alive” and “wanted dead.”  It appears as if Obama wanted Osama bin Laden dead, because he didn’t know what to do with him if he was captured alive.  He didn’t want to take him to Guantanamo, because that would be admitting that Bush got that right.  Yet he couldn’t risk giving custody of him to someone else and he sure couldn’t bring him to the U.S.   He didn’t want to use an air strike because he wanted proof Osama bin Laden was dead.     Ultimately, he authorized a high risk mission designed to just kill him, document the death, and move on.  That is not a reflection on the Navy Seals involved.  The Seals did their duty.  If the Seals had been ordered to try and take Osama bin Laden alive, they would have done that.  No one has ever said the Seals were told to try and capture him alive.

George Bush had a policy of saying that the U.S. would do whatever it took to get Osama bin Laden and if he got killed in the process that was acceptable.  But, I think that if Bush ordered the Seals to go on that mission he would have told them to at least try and take Osama bin Laden alive.  He would have done so because it would have been an important moral distinction to him.  He would also have done so because while killing Osama bin Laden would have been justified, capturing him might just have given us information to completely destroy al Qaeda.

Let me be clear, with someone like Osama bin Laden there is no duty to put our people at risk to try and spare his life.  If Obama had ordered an airstrike that killed everyone in the area, that would have been acceptable.  He also would have been justified in authorizing the Seals to use whatever force is necessary to complete the mission, including killing Osama bin Laden, if required.  But, both of those are very different from an assassination.  Obama is well aware of the distinction.  That is why the U.S. denies that it is trying to kill Gadhafi.  We are blowing up buildings all over Tripoli and killing his family members, while solemnly declaring Gadhafi is not a target.

Those who are required to kill, in the line of duty, don’t brag about it.  They know they have done the right thing, but they are still impacted by the reality that they have killed someone, justified or not.  Obama apparently has no such qualm, which is why he is so willing to embark on what is now an international victory lap.  A truly moral man would never feel like bragging about ordering an assassination.

I know several people who are genuine combat veterans from Vietnam and have also met several imposters.  As a combat veteran myself, the difference is instant and obvious.  I have never met a genuine combat veteran who bragged about killing anyone.  In fact, they don’t want to talk about that at all.  But the imposters are quick to give vivid details of events that did not occur. 

If George Bush had given the order to assault Osama bin Laden, he wouldn’t be bragging about it.  He probably would have deferred questions to the military, just like he did when Saddam Hussein was captured.  Bush would have accepted responsibility, but he would have deferred credit to those who went on the actual mission.  There could not be a more stark contrast between the characters of a George W. Bush and a Barack H. Obama.  

This is why the killing of Osama bin Laden did not help Obama and may actually hurt him. It exposed a lack of character.  Even if people don’t understand why, instinctively they know something is very wrong. 

On this Memorial Day weekend, may we all pause to remember to honor those men and women of character who have kept this country free.  May we also be sure to understand the significance of character in those who lead us.

TDM

For decades the Democratic Party has succeeded by convincing people to believe things that are not true.  Their strategy for 2012 is to continue the same strategy, only they will increase the volume.  However, no matter how loud it gets, they are still telling lies.  If the Republicans stand up to those lies, instead of trying to tip toe quietly out of sight, they will run the table in 2012.  However, if the Republicans follow their prior practice of using the prevent defense, they could easily lose the next round of elections.

Democrats are, once again, trying to win an election by scaring senior citizens into thinking Republicans will cut Social Security and Medicare.  But this time, Republicans can turn that around.  Barack Obama, not a Republican, was the first President who did not approve a cost-of-living increase in Social Security.  Barack Obama, not a Republican, is the President who proposed cutting billions of dollars in Medicare spending.  The Republicans need to fight back and fight back hard.  The argument should be that Barack Obama is more interested in making sure that the government handles your health care benefits than in making sure there are health care benefits to handle.  It is  mismanagement by the government that has resulted in skyrocketing medical costs.

Republicans need to point out that government programs don’t cut costs, they increase costs.  As Ronald Reagan observed, government doesn’t solve problems, government is the problem?   If we don’t get the corrupt, arrogant, incompetent, greedy fingers of the federal government out of our health care system, we are all going to have a problem obtaining affordable health care treatment in the future.

We need someone with the courage to ask Americans:  Who do you trust:  the federal government or private industry competing on a level playing field in a free market?

It is easy to explain this in terms everyone can understand.  Just a few years ago a flat panel television cost several thousand dollars.  Today that same television can be bought for a fraction of the original price.  Was that the result of government regulation, or industry innovation?

It should be obvious that the highest regulated industries in this country have the highest costs.  The lowest regulated industries have the lowest costs.  That is why televisions are cheap and cars are expensive.  There is a desperate need to eliminate unnecessary regulations, focus on what really matters and stop clogging the gears of commerce with needless and sometimes harmful regulations.  

If Republicans can explain these issues, without apologizing, in terms people can understand, the Democrats are doomed.  As FDR once said, the only thing the Republicans need to fear is fear itself.  The good news is that we have a new breed of Republicans who appear ready willing and able to challenge the status quo. 

I would not underestimate Sarah Palin for several reasons.  One is that the Democrats have already shot their wad at her and she is still standing.  If they haven’t found a smoking gun by now, there is no smoking gun.  A lot of people, including Republicans, thought she was down for the count.  They were wrong. Another is that these vicious attacks have done her an enormous favor.  When you have been painted as naïve, inexperienced and stupid, it doesn’t take much to prove that analysis wrong.   Those people who have formed their opinion of Sarah Palin from the biased reporting of the main stream media are in for a shock.   She is very bright.  She is extremely quick and she has been doing her homework.  This is a far cry from the deer in the headlight creature presented by the main stream media during the 2008 election.  Finally, she has become very skilled at campaigning in an internet world.  She frequently shakes up the political universe with 144 character “tweets.”  No one else is remotely capable of doing that.  Obama spends 45 minutes giving a boring speech staring at a TelePrompter, reading a speech written by someone else, and Sarah Palin skewers him with one paragraph written with one hand while the other is cooking dinner.

Sarah Palin had a documentary produced with the goal of providing a more balanced point of view about her term as Governor of Alaska.  No other candidate has launched a campaign with this type of approach.  I do not know if it will work, but it would be wise to pay close attention, since Sarah Palin has often be way ahead of the trends and people ignore her to their peril.  The other problem is that whether one loves Sarah Palin or hates Sarah Palin, they still can’t resist looking at her.

 TDM

Just when it looks like John McCain has reformed from his RINO ways, the old John McCain resurfaces.  His tortured reasoning is very damaging for several reasons:

   1.  There was no reason for him to opine on the subject of water boarding. 

   2.  He is clearly wrong. 

   3.  He gives cover to a weak administration with regard to critical national security issues.

Water boarding is not torture.  One of the statements I heard on Fox News the other night was some loudmouthed liberal saying that no one who has ever been water boarded has called it anything but torture.  Excuse me, but I was personally water boarded as part of my SERES (Survival Escape Resistance Evasion) training in 1968.  Unlike these morons, I understand exactly what happens.  It was a decidedly unpleasant experience, I didn’t want to undergo it then, and certainly wouldn’t want to undergo it again.  But real torture results in permanent injury.  Torture involves things such as pulling out teeth and hooking up electrical power to one’s gonads.  Torture is what the other guys do to our guys whenever they have the opportunity.  Torture is also what Obama is allowing to happen to people we capture now because he is still using rendition tactics.  He doesn’t do the water boarding, he allows someone else to it.  Torture is also what Great Britain, France, Germany and every other civilized nation does when it feels its national security is at risk.  Those who pretend otherwise are naïve fools. 

What Bush did was remarkable.  Clinton was just sending people to garden spots like Egypt where real torture was being done.  But, Bush had two problems with that policy:  1. We encouraged other countries to do things we claimed were illegal and immoral.  2. We lost control of the process and lost critical intelligence as a result.  So Bush said no.  He said we will take them to Guantanamo, and we will get the information from them using techniques that are tough, but which are a far cry from torture.   The ONLY difference between what Clinton did and what Obama is doing is that Bush didn’t play games and pretend it wasn’t happening. 

McCain is parsing words to try and justify a conclusion that is clearly inaccurate.  Numerous experts say that our intelligence didn’t realize the significance of the nickname of the courier until Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tipped them off that this was one of the people who had direct access to Osama bin Laden.  That is an extremely important distinction.  Yes, other people may have mentioned this guy’s name before Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did, but that would have meant little to the intelligence community.  It would be the equivalent of someone telling Germany there was a secret military installation at Los Alamos.  That probably happened.  A lot of people knew there was a secret military installation there.  But, what Germany did not know was that this was where the U.S. was constructing a nuclear weapon there.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was one of a handful of people who knew how to communicate with Osama bin Laden.  Even if he just confirmed information already obtained from another source, it was still incredibly important information.

I, unfortunately, had a lot of personal training with regard to interrogation techniques.  It is true that most intelligence experts believe that information obtained under extreme duress, such as torture, is of questionable value.  There is merit to that position.  But, that is not the complete story.  It depends on the kind of information you want.  For example, suppose police have someone in custody who they know kidnapped a little girl and has stashed her away some place.   If that person is put under duress, they are very likely to tell the police where she is located.  Is anyone really naïve enough to think that the police would not do whatever is necessary to get this information?  This information may not hold up in a court of law, but it may save that girl’s life.  This is exactly the type of information that our intelligence people were trying to get from the enhanced interrogation.  Lives were saved as a result.

I suspect that Osama bin Laden could have been captured alive.  I also suspect that this was not even considered because Obama had boxed himself into a corner and would have had no good option for dealing with a live Osama bin Laden.  What was he going to do, bring him to New York for trial?  So instead, we just killed him to avoid the problem. 

Whether it is Obama, or another U.S. President, at some point in the future we are going to get our hands on someone else who has information we absolutely have to get.  Sadly, because of people like John McCain, the balanced rational and moral alternative brilliantly developed by George W. Bush is now off the table.  Sad!

TDM

When I was flying out of Pleiku over the Ho Chi Minh trail it was on an EC47.  We communicated on a highly encrypted radio network.  There was one guy who used to call out, “Bawk…Bawk…Bawk… Bawk!  Chicken Man!  He’s everywhere!  He’s everywhere.”   I viewed it as comedic relief; some of our senior squadron officers were not nearly as amused.   It was, after all, a combat zone and this was a secure radio network.  There was always considerable speculation as to the real identity of “Chicken Man.”  The reality, which I feel can be safely disclosed after 40 years, is that there was no single “Chicken Man.” There were several people capable of being “Chicken Man.”  That was how the legend lived on.  Just when the higher powers thought they were closing in on a candidate, someone else would step up to the plate and make it obvious that the primary suspect could not possibly be the guy.  It was really quite simple.  All that was necessary was for the “Chicken Man” call to go out at a time when the primary suspect couldn’t possibly have done it.  Without admitting anything, I can do a pretty fair “Chicken Man” call to this day.

Today, we have the infamous “White House Insider.”  This is supposedly a liberal Democrat who is totally fed up with Obama, so he dishes out the real inside dirt.  Since most of what the White House Insider” has to say is totally consistent with what many of us believe with regard to the character and ability of Obama, it makes for entertaining reading.  It would be great if the White House Insider were a real person, along the lines of “Deep Throat” from the Nixon era.  Before he died in 2008, Mark Felt went public with the announcement that he was the one and only “Deep Throat.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/washington/19felt.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

Although there were numerous suspects with regard to the real identity of “Deep Throat,” it wasn’t until Felt disclosed the information himself that anyone really knew it was him.  There were a lot of people who questioned whether “Deep Throat” even existed.  He just seemed too good to be true.  But, he was real, and the information he leaked brought down a U.S. President.  I have always felt that there was more than one “Deep Throat.”

I have no way of knowing if the “White House Insider” is real, or not.  Some of the things he says are so vivid and detailed that it is hard to imagine someone making this up out of whole cloth.  On the other hand, these descriptions are so one-sided against Obama that they fall into the “too good to be true” (or “too bad to be true”) category, depending on your political perspective. 

The latest version is with regard to the assault on Osama bin Laden.   The link to the story is here.  You can read it for yourself:

http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/

Following is a copy of the picture taken in the White House situation room.    Ask yourself, who looks like he just got dragged off a golf course and was asked to be a witness at his own execution?  Who looks absolutely horrified and who looks like they belong there?  If this picture was designed to make Obama look Presidential, I wonder what the bad photos look like!

 There have certainly been reports from this source that have been later verified, but there have also been reports that were ridiculously wrong.  There are a lot of smart people who despise Obama, but think the “White House Insider” is just a hoax.  I have no way of knowing if any of this is true.  It seems a little hard to believe that any President, including Obama, could really be this bad.  But the problem is that this will quickly circle the globe on the internet.  Whether it is true, or not, a lot of people will believe it because it is consistent with their perception of Obama as a leader.   That is a serious problem;  a lack of respect for the office of the President of the United States puts us all at risk. 

The only thing certain is that this is dangerous stuff.  If this is accurate, then we have a real serious leadership problem in our government.  If it is not accurate, then this individual is doing grave harm to our national security, and he should be silenced.

Too many people stood by silently while the liberal left and the main stream media falsely accused Bush of lying about the war in Iraq.   That did great harm to the office of the President of the United States.  If Bush lied, he should have been impeached.  If he didn’t, those who falsely accused him should have been silenced.  There is no safe middle ground. 

TDM