Conservative Narrative on Defense Harder to Peddle

Can We Finally Call Out the GOP for Being Against Our National Security With Regards to the START Treaty?

President Obama & General Powell Push for a New START


From Wikipedia

START (for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was a bilateral treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. The treaty was signed on 31 July 1991 and entered into force on 5 December 1994 . The treaty was signed by the United States and the USSR, that barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000 nuclear warheads atop a total of 1,600 ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers. START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80 percent of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. Proposed by United States President Ronald Reagan, it was renamed START I after negotiations began on the second START treaty, which became START II.

The START I treaty expired 5 December 2009. On 8 April 2010, the new START treaty was signed in Prague by U.S. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev. It will enter into force after its ratification through the parliaments of both countries.

PROPOSAL
The first START proposal was presented by United States President Ronald Reagan in Geneva on 29 June 1982. Reagan proposed a dramatic reduction in strategic forces in two phases, which he referred to as SALT III at the time.[2] The first phase would reduce overall warhead counts on any missile type to 5,000, with an additional limit of 2,500 on ICBMs. Additionally, a total of 850 ICBMs would be allowed, with a limit of 110 "heavy throw" missiles like the SS-18, with additional limits on the total "throw weight" of the missiles as well. The second phase introduced similar limits on heavy bombers and their warheads, and other strategic systems as well.

So, the original START Treaty was presented by GOP Hero Ronald Reagan. Ronald ' He defeated the Commies' Reagan.

The President has negotiated START II, and now it needs ratification by the Senate. The problem with is that all treaties need 2/3 majority in the Senate to be ratified.

Of course, the problem is the GOP. They suddenly have a problem with START II.

WHY?

Because President Obama negotiated it.

If this had been George Bush, and he had negotiated anything with our international allies, the first thing that would have been said about any Democrat who opposed it was how the Democrats were once again ENDANGERING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. And, how dare they oppose the President. Aren't they REAL Americans?

You know it. I know it.

START II IS about the national security of the United States of America, and these mofos could care less. It's quite obvious that they could care less. How bad is it?

This is what the dean of GOP Foreign Policy in the Senate - Richard Lugar of Indiana has said to his colleagues:

LUGAR: Please do your duty for your country. We do not have verification of the Russian nuclear posture right now. We’re not going to have it until we sign the START treaty. We’re not going to be able to get rid of further missiles and warheads aimed at us. I state it candidly to my colleagues, one of those warheads…could demolish my city of Indianapolis — obliterate it! Now Americans may have forgotten that. I’ve not forgotten it and I think that most people who are concentrating on the START treaty want to move ahead to move down the ladder of the number of weapons aimed at us.

Here is Kyl of Arizona on MTP this past weekend. Please note that they've had the treaty in their hands for MONTHS.

Appearing on Meet The Press, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said that the Senate would not be able to ratify the START treaty during the lame-duck session: "If the leader of the Senate, Senator Reid, were to allow a couple of weeks for full debate and amendment of the resolution of ratification, then theoretically there would be time. But he has made it clear that he has a different agenda in mind. And I, I think clearly they've got to set some priorities here. Are they going to deal with the funding of the government for the remainder of the fiscal year? They've got to do that. Are they going to deal with the issue which is on everybody's mind, that you mentioned earlier, and that is to ensure that we don't have a big tax increase, the largest tax increase in the history of the country. These are higher priority items."

Higher priority than the national security of the United States?

G-T-F-O-H


You have other Republicans calling the Senate out for their insanity.

From ThinkProgress:

Former Republican Sen. Warns GOP May ‘Have Gone So Far Overboard That We Are Beyond Redemption’

In an age when far-right tea party activists have taken over the Republican Party and demanded lockstep allegiance, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) has been one of the few GOP lawmakers to step out of line. In particular, Lugar, the ranking GOP member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has blasted his own party for relentlessly blocking ratification of the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia, calling on his fellow GOP senators to “do your duty for your country” and complete the pact.

Not surprisingly, this insubordination has earned Lugar significant scorn within the Republican base, which now seems to value blind obedience over principled independent decision-making. In a New York Times profile of Lugar published today, former GOP Sen. John Danforth feared that the backlash against Lugar from his own party signals that the GOP has gone “far overboard” with no hope of turning back:

“If Dick Lugar,” said John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, “having served five terms in the U.S. Senate and being the most respected person in the Senate and the leading authority on foreign policy, is seriously challenged by anybody in the Republican Party, we have gone so far overboard that we are beyond redemption.”

Mr. Danforth, who was first elected the same year as Mr. Lugar, added, “I’m glad Lugar’s there and I’m not.”

THIS from the man who brought us Unca Clarence.

Richard Lugar, could in no way, be considered a liberal anything. Hell, he couldn't even be considered a moderate anything. He is a conservative, but the man actually thinks about the national security of this country over getting a defeat of the President.

Imagine that - National Security of America and what's in America's international best interests - EVEN IF IT GIVES PRESIDENT OBAMA A WIN - over being a loyal GOP slop.

A REAL American, would want our country to be safe internationally. Would want this country to be in good standing - around the world.

These people are not Real Americans. They are not Good Americans. And, the left has to stop believing that they have any redeeming qualities. That they are nothing but powerhungry animals who could give a rat's ass if this country goes down the tubes, as long as they are in power and can loot the treasury for their friends. They have had MONTHS to look over this treaty. The only reason why they are objecting is because they don't want the President to get any credit for an International Foreign Policy Success.

PERIOD.

A sum up of the GOP Obstructionists with START II on Olbermann:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Janet Napolitano In the Middle Of Gulf Oil Spill Crisis

Paraphrased by the New York Times in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Disaster as saying:

'she did not know if the Defense Department even had equipment that might be helpful'. (They did...and have for years).

Lesson - This is why politicians have no business in these kinds of positions -- Director of Homeland Security, FBI director, FEMA director, TSA chief, OSHA chief, EPA chief, CDC director, HHS Secretary, FDA director, Consumer Product Safety Commissioners (CPSC), director of MMS, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Secretary of Defense, etc. These are crucial positions that involve emergency management & response, public safety, and national security/defense. They require leaders to have a clue about what the Hell is going on. Heads of these agencies and departments should have some level of expertise and experience in the kinds of work that they are directing.

This is one of the big reasons why I didn't care for her selection for DHS director. She's a politician. Not a national security person. Not an emergency manager. Not a public safety person. Not a law enforcement person. Not a security expert. Not a first responder. You should have some practical experience in at least one of these areas if you are going to be the Homeland Security chief.
There were tons of more qualified individuals (including some Black Americans... although I don't have a racial litmus test) who could have been chosen for this position.

Republican Crazies Are Complaining About The Handling of Times Square Terrorist

I expected that the crazies would start complaining about the Times Square event. It didn't take them long at all. The idiots claim that providing miranda to a citizen is somehow out of step with Federal law and our legal norms. Of course this has been done since Miranda V. Arizona almost half a century ago. But who cares about the facts? Who cares about facts when you are a Republican and you live in a fantasyland where you can make up your own reality - a reality that you can get gullible American voters to buy into?

John McCain, one of the main complainers, is a U.S. Senator and should know the laws in this Country. This man scares the Hell out of me. I always thought he was somewhat of a whackjob. It's amazing that he almost became President. In fact, McCain would probably be President right now if not for Bush's economic crisis. Even with the unpopularity of Bush and the Republican Party, McCain was headed for victory (according to polling) against Obama prior to the economic collapse in the Fall of 2008. We definitely dodged a bullet.

Joe Lieberman took the crazy a step further by suggesting that Shahzad should have his citizenship taken away in order to eliminate the need for miranda or a trial in the Federal Courts.

From Huffpost:

Lieberman argued that if an act of terrorism was coordinated with a group designated as a terrorist organization, then an American involved with such a group would lose citizenship and the constitutional protections that come with it.

Ummm, excuse me Mr. Lieberman, but does that also include the Right wing Christian Conservatives, the Tea Party radicals, and White Supremacist terror groups that have been embraced by the Republican Party, either tacitly or out in the open? What about the members of Congress who are associated with radical extremists on the right and who stoke fear? I wonder how that would work out.

Faisal Shahzad Arrested for Attempted Times Square Attack

Possible Co-conspirator(s) Arrested Overseas

Lessons Learned? Unfortunately There Probably Won't Be. It May Even Send The Country Into A Deeper State of Complacency.

Faisal Shahzad, a 30 year old originally from Pakistan was arrested in the nick of time at JFK airport overnight. He was apparently taken off an aircraft, just before departure. More here.

I knew it would be just a matter of time before we started to see this kind of activity here in the U.S. (Car bomb attempts, IED's, etc). More of these events are probably inevitable. Unfortunately, the level of security in the U.S. is woefully inadequate for dealing with these types of threats. It was luck that prevented a disaster in Times Square.

The U.S. still has gaping holes in its security. At the moment, there is no effective comprehensive or cohesive security strategy. The U.S. system relies too heavily on the intelligence community on one extreme, and too heavily on conventional military power on the other extreme. In the middle lies a big hole (domestic security). I have always been baffled by this notion that the intelligence community should be able to stop every event. Traditionally, this has never been the role of intelligence. It was never meant to be 100%, 90% or even 80% effective in thwarting terrorist attacks. Intelligence - which began as a military concept - is just a tool in a much larger toolbox. It was traditionally meant to be used in conjunction with other resources, not as the end all be all. But due to sensational media coverage since 9/11, Americans have come to believe and expect that intelligence could magically stop everything. Events that go undetected are often mistakenly labeled as "intelligence failures"....regardless of whether they are really failures or not. In an open society like the one we have in the U.S., the best intelligence system will only stop about 50% of incidents like the Times Square event (and that's pretty good).

That "middle" that I mentioned includes an immigration system that should be more effective at screening who enters the country, should have a more effective vetting system for entrants from certain parts of the globe, should have a more selective system for determining who receives residency status, citizenship, etc. The "middle" also refers to a better ability to track suspects, the need for a system to limit or prevent the purchase of ingredients that could be used for IED's (ammonium nitrate for example), and soft targets, including high value targets, that are wide open. Our passenger rail systems, metro train systems, bus systems, and passenger ships are all inadequately protected. Commercial rail, which transports tons of hazardous materials through heavily populated areas, also lacks adequate security measures.

The U.S. also needs to utilize biometric ID technology. State ID's and drivers licenses should be tamper proof. Federal law should require ID and information to be recorded whenever there is a private transaction involving the sale of automobiles,
hazardous store-bought ingredients that could have dual uses, etc. Certain items shouldn't be available for sale at all, unless the customer can demonstrate a legitimate use for the materials. Americans would be surprised at what kinds of materials are available over the counter.

The biggest part of the gaping hole in the "middle" is the private security sector. We have a private security industry in the U.S. that is a complete joke. While other countries such as India, Israel, and much of Europe have nationalized most aspects of their security (like the nationalization of Health Care for example), the U.S. maintains a weak private, for-profit, security system. In the years to come, Americans will unfortunately begin to see how bad this really is. It's one of those gaping holes that has always been there, but won't be fully understood until there is a catastrophe. I recall flying from Germany one year (way back in the 80's) to come home for some kind of family visit, and I remember how strong the security was. The screening agents, even back then, worked for the State (West Germany at the time). It took a tragedy like 9/11 to get the U.S. to nationalize its screening operations (although the private screeners were not directly responsible for 9/11... they were used as a convenient scapegoat). But there have been other cases where private screeners, which worked directly for the airlines, proved inadequate. It was nonsensical to put airlines in charge of their own security screening operations. The whole concept was flawed from the beginning.

Hopefully the U.S. will wake up and strengthen its security posture before these sorts of events become the new normal.

O'Donnell bitchslaps Thiessen

hat tips- whiterosebuddy and Miranda.

Background for this from whiterosebuddy:
Did anyone else see that smackdown brawl on MorningJoe between O'Donnell and that asshole Thiessen?
He's the one with the new book claiming that Obama has dismantled some program and that he should not be killing the terrorists cause then we don't get intel? I posted a blurb about that nonsense on thurs thread.

OMG! You should have seen O'Donnell rip into this guy...Joe had to go for a break and even said, when we come back I will interview Thiessen alone.

After he was silenced, Joe gave O'Donnell one last query...and O'Donnell set it up by saying, what kind of experience do you have as a guy who grew up in the wealthiest zip code on EastSide and went to the only boarding school In CT with a golf course and having never served in the military, what experience do you have to say...... I was like DAyUUUM just put this obsequious phucker on blast O'Donnell!!

It was SWEEET!!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama and the Torture Trap - Score A Round For the Republicans

President Obama suffered his first big defeat last week with the Senate voting 90-6 to block funding to close the Guantanamo detention facility, which was a major campaign promise. The House of Representatives also rejected the closure. The vote was mostly symbolic, since it does not really stop Obama from shutting down operations at Gitmo. But the Senate vote sent a strong message to the Obama Administration - with the main concern being that allowing these detainees into the U.S. as prisoners is not the best idea right now, and Americans may not be ready for that move. Some have expressed concern that these prisoners could eventually become folk heroes in Federal prisons and could influence & recruit other inmates. There is some precedent to that…but I think this concern is being overblown for political purposes. Essentially what the Senate was telling Obama is that they (and the American People) want to see the plan.

In addition to the Gitmo defeat in the Senate, Obama also allowed Republicans to set a trap for him not only on torture, but on the wider issues of Terrorism and National Security. Cheney has effectively changed the narrative by taking the focus off of the crimes that he himself took part in while pushing an illegitimate war to focus instead on labeling Obama as weak on terrorism. Now the narrative is - another terrorist attack will be Obama’s fault because of his soft on terror approach and his efforts to change interrogation policy. Of course any new attacks won’t likely be due to a difference in interrogation techniques… but that’s the perception that Republicans are trying to create in the minds of the American public….and with their media advantage, they may succeed in creating that perception. This is why I have always stated that the Republican media machine/Spin machine is so powerful that they will be able to control narratives and get their message out, even while in the minority and while they are politically unpopular. Democrats and progressives don’t yet have a media infrastructure that can match what the Republicans have.

One thing in particular is strange about Cheney’s argument. He is laying the groundwork for Obama to fail on National Security by setting him up to be blamed for any new attacks… but wasn’t it Bush/Cheney & Co. that emphasized in 2001 and the years immediately after that the U.S. would probably be hit again? They focused on that point every chance they got - when they were in office. Of course, they did that to cover their behinds… because it was their negligence that, in part, allowed 9/11 to take place. They knew Americans wouldn’t tolerate 2 big attacks in a row under the "leadership" the same cast of clowns…. They would surely be voted out in 2004 if they allowed that to happen. So they sent the message that any new attacks against the Country would not be because they weren’t working hard to stop it…besides, they had the 'War on Terror' that was going strong at the time (although in reality it actually radicalized more people to harm us than it discouraged)…but any new attacks would be because the enemy hates the U.S. and “freedom” so much and they are plotting day and night against us. They admitted that they may not be able to stop all attacks. Do you recall how they emphasized that so incessantly? But now that they are out of office…. A new terrorist attack (which the Republican Party is praying for) will be the fault of Obama and the Democrats....not because the enemy is so determined to kill Americans. The Republicans are so good at changing the narrative to fit their political aims...and they are often able to get people to believe in the script.

The Republicans see an opening to possibly revitalize their dying Party by putting national security front & center. They are hoping that another terrorist attack will lead to a comeback, but they have to prep. Obama as the Fall guy to make it work. So far so good for the Republicans…with Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and others on the far Right showing their leadership over the Party.

The Republicans have hit Obama with a one-two punch combination… stunning him… almost knocking him down. How did Obama allow this opening? How did he get so distracted that he let his guard down? Because he allowed far Left elements of the Democratic Party to hijack his agenda & replace the nations top priorities with their own (torture, gay marriage, etc). It’s the same thing that has happened to the Republicans from time to time (and now on a more permanent basis) when they allow far Right single issue groups like the anti-abortion folks, the religious right, the racists, the anti-government crowd and the pro-gun community to hijack the wider Republican agenda. Ohh… wait a second. Hell… that is the Republican agenda. But you get my point. Obama got to this point by taking his eye off the ball… by taking his focus off of the economy, healthcare, and other bread & butter issues… to focus instead on matters that are not among the top concerns of most Americans. Although I blog about torture, it is not even a top 10 issue for me personally...never was. It's an important issue... I have stated as much before.. but i'm not as fired up about it as extreme Left ultra-Liberals are.

Obama has been unable (so far) to regain control of his Presidency since opening this can of worms. His hijacked agenda is now at risk of being driven over a cliff by some of the more fringe elements of his Party. Even Nancy Pelosi, who was dragged into this mess over the last few weeks, is now screaming uncle…and begging for the Obama train to be put back on the tracks to focus on Kitchen table issues. This is why I stated all along that pushing this issue too hard & taking the focus off of the economy was a bad idea. And attempting to close Gitmo without a well thought out detailed plan was boneheaded on the part of the President and his advisers.

Obama has also backtracked in the past few weeks on the issue of military style tribunals for terror suspects, a move that has irritated Progressives. So in the past few weeks, Obama has angered folks on the Right & the Left. But he did it to himself. Who in the World is advising him to make these boneheaded decisions?

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised considering this is an Administration with staff that didn’t understand that flying planes low over Manhattan was probably not a good idea. It’s amazing that these folks are able to have jobs in the White House. I was amazed at how clueless these people were on that issue…and how they didn’t think it was a big deal. Now some of these same folks are showing how clueless they are on other matters.

The issue regarding the detainees is not that hard to fix. Possible solution: Segregate the international terror detainees from other inmates. The issue regarding trials is complex but not something that can’t be dealt with. The Obama Administration could start by trying as many cases as possible in the Federal civilian court system. Those suspects who can’t be tried in the Federal Courts should be retried in a rebuilt and fair tribunal system…and they could be taken through a new interrogation process if necessary (for those who faced harsh or unfair treatment under the old system). Those suspects who can’t be tried under either system should be sent back to their home Countries or held for a defined period for further investigation or charged under more broad anti-terror legislation. Holding suspects indefinitely without attorney’s & without trial is crazy talk which should be out of the question.

Obama has to get back to focusing on the bread & butter issues that matter most to Americans. He does better on the pocket book issues that people are most concerned with…although the stimulus effort from Democrats was not aggressive enough in funneling money towards job creation and creating new industries. I call this the 3rd round of a 12 round fight. Obama scored a knockdown in round 1 (by winning the election)…and won on points for round 2 (his first 100 days). But round 3 goes to the Republicans. By pushing the Torture & Gitmo issues so aggressively… lured by Leftists in his own Party, Obama fell right into a Republican trap. It allowed them an opening to take the media’s focus off of the economy which they destroyed and allowed them to put National Security and fear back on the front page.

With North Korea engaging in irrational behavior, and with Iran testing missiles, you will see Republicans pressuring Obama and even dictating the nations foreign policy, even though they are in the minority. By painting Obama as weak… they will attempt to goat Obama into leaning towards some sort of military solution (when there is no military solution) with North Korea and Iran. Israel has already launched an effort to influence U.S. media and U.S. politics, by attempting to frighten the American public with their leaked intelligence reports on Iran. Israels goal is to push Obama to go to war with Iran (a war that would likely draw in other nations...and a war that wouldn't be in the best interests of the United States...or any other Country). And as I stated, there isn't even a military solution regarding Iran to begin with. The only military solution is a sensible containment policy and defense. The solution in both cases is political, strategic and economic….with some creative out of the box thinking required. But the Republicans would like a war with both Iran and North Korea. The torture issue has now weakened Obama’s hand …in terms of possible solutions and diplomatic approaches. Notice how he has already been forced to engage in tough talk…. Pushing more sanctions for North Korea…among other possible punishments… steps that aren’t likely to work. Obama should instead push harder for direct State to State talks…and getting rid of the Six Party framework… that hasn’t worked…and probably can’t work. The idea of the Six Party framework was flawed from the beginning. A wider, more comprehensive regional Peace Treaty or non-aggression pact is needed… starting with an official end to the Korean War. But Republicans are already working to paint Obama into a corner… (because he opened the door to be attacked on National Security). The Republican media is already calling the North Korea issue "a moment of truth for Obama". As if Bush & Co. didn’t have any moments of truth with North Korea that they completely bungled. For 8 years, the Neo-Conservatives refused to negotiate one on one with North Korea…even when they were willing to give up their program (back when the U.S. had leverage). The U.S. no longer has much leverage with North Korea. That window of optimal leverage closed some time ago… in the years under Clinton and Bush. Now they want Obama to fix it…

I’m hoping that Obama won’t allow Republicans to dictate policy…and will work on a diplomatic, political and economic solution. Americans tolerated 16 consecutive years of pro-war policy under Clinton and Bush…. But Republicans are ready to give up on more sensible alternative approaches after only a few months. It’s amazing. Iran and North Korea aren’t responding to Obama’s overtures after a few weeks (which have not been that friendly) and now all of a sudden it’s time to send in the Carriers and attack.

President Obama's Speech at the National Archives

Remarks of President Barack Obama - As Prepared for Delivery
Protecting Our Security and Our Values
National Archives Museum
Washington, D.C.
May 21, 2009

These are extraordinary times for our country. We are confronting an historic economic crisis. We are fighting two wars. We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century. There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear.

And we have begun to make progress. Just this week, we have taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely. The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we are working toward historic reform of health care and energy. I welcome the hard work that has been done by the Congress on these and other issues.

In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

This responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm. We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.

Already, we have taken several steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster. We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world.

These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words - "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset - in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.

Read more »

A Discussion about Dick Cheney and His Efforts to Make Obama The Fall Guy

NPR had a great discussion about Tricky Dick II last week and his efforts to turn the tables in the torture debate. Dick Cheney has been on a media blitz lately on behalf of the Republican Party (and in an effort to cover his own rear end). His aim seems to be to argue that tough interrogation techniques (torture) worked and therefore were justified. He is also attempting to use fear (although I don't think it's working this time) to support his argument. He keeps repeating the argument that getting rid of "enhanced interrogation techniques" will put the U.S. at serious risk of another terrorist attack. Although none of the top experts and national security officials (National Security Adviser Jones, DNI Blair, the CIA Director, nor the Joint Chiefs Chairman) believe that changing the interrogation process will increase the risk of another 9/11. Even if there were another attack...it isn't even remotely likely that it could be tied to the change in interrogation rules. But by using this argument, Cheney's goal seems to be to set Obama up for blame if another terrorist attack takes place under the new Administration. In other words... he is hoping to use another terrorist attack as a way to breathe new life into the Republican Party. Sickening stuff!

Listen to Discussion

Can't make this stuff up. Pill Poppin' Piece-On-The-Side says James.Dobson.In.A.Dress Has National Security Experience

HOW Mirror On America readers.

I know you're asking how.

Because....

ALASKA IS CLOSE TO RUSSIA

blink.

double blink.

oh.no.she.didn't.

oh.yes.she.did

Asked about Palin's national security experience, Cindy McCain could not come up with anything beyond the fact that, after all, her state is right next to Russia. "You know, the experience that she comes from is, what she has done in government -- and remember that Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia."

The video is HERE.

Please go DIGG IT.

Riddle me this, people.

What would be happening if MICHELLE had said this?

Top Military Officers Come Out In Support of Obama

Hillary Clinton rolled out her Generals last week in an attempt to bolster her National Security "credentials" and to bash Barack Obama, but Obama is now displaying military brass of his own. Hillary Clinton does not have a monopoly on the issues of National Security and Foreign Affairs.

The Admirals and Generals from the United States Army, Navy and Air Force have served under the last nine U.S. Presidents.

(And I see a few potential VP candidates in this group...but I doubt that they would want to go into politics).



From Earthtimes.org

Statements from the Commanders:
"Those of us who have served, worn the cloth of our nation, and gone into harm's way know that to be successful we must have the strongest sense of trust in our Commander in Chief. We must be confident that he or she has listened to the best possible advice, that he or she has garnered the best possible information from all possible sources, that he or she has analyzed and weighed all the possible consequences and outcomes, and that he or she has made the decision to exert military force as a last possible resort," said Admiral (Ret.) Robert Williamson (USN). "Of this I am certain: Senator Obama will do all of those things and much more to ensure the safety and freedom of our citizens, our allies, and coalition partners. He has all the great qualities and attributes required to carry out the most difficult duties of the Presidency".

Brigadier General Larry Gillespie
Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret)
Admiral Don Guter
Brigadier General David "Dave" McGinnis
General Merrill "Tony" McPeak
Admiral John B. Nathman
Major General Hugh Robinson
Brigadier General James Smith
Admiral Robert "Willie" Williamson (USN-Ret Rear Admiral)
Major General Ralph Wooten

More information


Comments from Obama:

As President, I will ask myself every day whether I am serving our troops and veterans as well as they have served America. That means only sending them into harm’s way when we absolutely must; providing them with a clear mission and the equipment they need to do the job; standing by them when they come home; and helping them live their dreams after they leave the service.

Like the men who have joined me on this stage today, my story is only possible in America. It is the story of my grandfather, who marched in Patton’s Army; and my father, who crossed the globe to be a part of the dream that my grandfather defended. An America that secures its people, and stands as a light of hope for the world.

That is the America that I will defend as Commander-in-Chief, drawing on the counsel of military commanders and the courage and conviction of the American people. An America where we meet the challenges of the 21st century with sound judgment, clear plans, and a common purpose.

After years of a divisive politics that uses national security as a wedge to drive us apart, how much longer do we have to wait to bring this country together to confront our common enemies?

After years of being told that Democrats have to talk, act and vote like John McCain to pass some Commander-in-Chief test, how many times do we have to learn that tough talk is not a substitute for sound judgment?

After years of a war in Iraq that should’ve never been authorized, how many more politicians will appeal to the American peoples’ fears instead of their hopes?

Sinbad Slams Hillary Clinton

The vetting of Hillary Clinton continues...

From the Washington Post Blog:

Sinbad, along with singer Sheryl Crow, was on that 1996 trip to Bosnia that Clinton has described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call at the White House on day one, a claim for which she's taking much grief on the campaign trail.

Harrowing? Not that Sinbad recalls. He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.

In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"

Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. "They said there might be sniper fire," Clinton said.
Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn't remember that, either.
"I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"

In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."
Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

Clinton Caught Exaggerating Her Experience

More like "lying" as far as I'm concerned. I have been saying for months that Clinton was attempting to embellish her Resume.

I knew that if the media started to shake the Clinton Tree.... Lies would come tumbling down. And it turns out, there's an abundance of lies and exaggerations that Clinton has been getting away with for the past year. This is a case of the media (at least some in the media) coming on board far too late, following up on arguments that bloggers have been making for a long time.

Clinton's claim that she brought Peace to Northern Ireland has turned out to be a gross exaggeration a damn lie. As well as her claim that she worked on ending the genocide in Rwanda.... This is another big fat lie. The Clinton's didn't do a damn thing about Rwanda. (see the documentary "Ghosts of Rwanda").

The Chicago Tribune has started to take a look at Hillary Clintons "experience".

NPR was the first major media outlet to even question Clintons "experience" claims. No one in the corporate media has been brave enough to actually report the facts until now. They have been too busy cheerleading for Clinton, instead of being impartial truthtellers.

Oliver Willis has posted a hilarious Hillary Clinton Resume that is sadly much closer to the truth than Clintons embellishments.

She has also claimed that she is a National Security expert and that she knows the military (she doesn't know a damn thing about the military). She has no connection to the military- the military is a different World to her. Neither Clinton has ever served. And I doubt if she could tell you the difference between a Company, a Regiment, a Battalion, a Division, Corps, or Army, nor does she know the Chain of Command, or anything about the U.S. military's capabilities, weapons systems, or limitations, the various commands, or the rankings...I doubt if she could hold a conversation about any of this (without someone playing ventriloquist).

About Hillary's 3am Fear Commercial

You can't make this stuff up.