---
I cannot get elected unless I have an enemy so why not attack those pesky maggot millionaires who are simply living off the land and contributing nothing to society - so sayeth our Messiah! (See 1 below)
Obama - Marxist, indifferent, stupid or all three? You decide. (See 1a below.)
---
We hear scare tactics about how we must raise the debt ceiling or all hell will descend upon our nation's credit ratings.
As the article points out we have a revenue stream more than adequate to fund our debt interest. What would happen if the limit is not raised is that it would force the government to quit spending and god forbid that should happen. (See 2 below.)
---
A Conservative Black commentator attacks the president as no white person could do and yet, there is nothing in Massie's comments that do not ring true.
Massie is obviously embarrassed for his own people at the Obama's behaviour which is the equivalent of the hillbilly family that struck oil and became the Clamperts of Hollywood.(See 3 below.)
---
Commentary on what Bernanke had to say. (See 4 below.)
---
China is our nation's greatest misunderstood military threat, Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan are starting to question their relationship with the U.S. and Hamas and Fatah have agreed to unite. Meanwhile, Iran continues its march toward achieving nuclear status and Libya, Syria remain inflamed.
This is the world Obama's appeasement and apology speeches were going to improve. Obama told us were going to be a more respected and loved nation because of his policies.
I thought it was garbage when he made them and now it has proven pretty much to be just that.
Was our nation's decline part of Obama's hidden agenda? You decide. (See 5 below.)
--
Meanwhile golfers come up with a pregnant idea! (See 6 below.)
---
Off to Litchfield Beach for a week and you are relieved of any memos.
-
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Obama's Millionaire Obsession The president has no understanding of the unique role wealth plays in American life.
By DANIEL HENNINGER
With less than 19 months left before the next presidential election, Barack Obama has kicked off his campaign, doing coast-to-coast "town hall" meetings last week. At the top of President Obama's re-election strategy is what appears to be a personal jihad against America's "millionaires and billionaires," many of whom, he seems to think, are—there's no other word for it—un-American. So naturally the place he picked to pitch an assault on the wealthy was the Silicon Valley headquarters of Facebook, a place filled with millionaires and billionaires.
As has become his habit, Mr. Obama pulled his audience into his narrative by personalizing public policy. And so it was with his Facebook host, Mark Zuckerberg.
The president: "And then what we've said is let's take another trillion [dollars] of that that we raise through a reform in the tax system that allows people like me—and, frankly, you, Mark—for paying a little more in taxes." (Laughter.)
Mr. Zuckerberg: "I'm cool with that."
Well, what's a 26-year-old billionaire supposed to say?
What Mr. Obama said later in the Facebook meet-up wasn't so funny. Here it is, in toto:
"But I think that what he [Rep. Paul Ryan] and the other Republicans in the House of Representatives also want to do is change our social compact in a pretty fundamental way. Their basic view is that no matter how successful I am, no matter how much I've taken from this country—I wasn't born wealthy; I was raised by a single mom and my grandparents; I went to college on scholarships. There was a time when my mom was trying to get her Ph.D, where for a short time she had to take food stamps. My grandparents relied on Medicare and Social Security to help supplement their income when they got old. So their notion is, despite the fact that I've benefited from all these investments—my grandfather benefited from the GI Bill after he fought in World War II—that somehow I now have no obligation to people who are less fortunate than me and I have no real obligation to future generations to make investments so that they have a better [future]."
One may assume there are more than a handful of liberals who would cringe at such a gross caricature. Mr. Obama has gone to this "millionaires" well so many times since the first days of his presidency that one would have to be obtuse not to recognize a visceral animosity beneath these sentiments.
It suggests that Mr. Obama has not much more understanding beyond an undergraduate seminar on "Class in America" of the complex and unique role wealth has played in American life. Since the Pilgrims, no nation has seen more wealth flow back from those who earned it into the welfare of the nation they inhabit.
Andrew Carnegie alone built more than 1,600 libraries in the U.S. Today, according to Internal Revenue Service data, there are some 110,000 grant-making private foundations in the U.S. Beyond the foundations bearing the names of famously undertaxed plutocrats such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates there are another hundred thousand or so, often run by modestly wealthy families whose foundations support a vast array of needs—scholarships, schools, hospitals, cultural institutions and even causes across the political spectrum, no doubt including windmills.
The Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College reports that giving by individuals hit an astounding $243 billion in 2007. As to the millionaires, the report says, "In that year, households with $1 million or more in net worth gave 52%, or $126.15 billion." During the 2008 recession, their giving dropped 4% "because there were 27% fewer millionaire households at that time." But by the end of 2009, giving by millionaire households returned to 52% of the national total.
It is an eternal question whether the deductibility of such spending means the charitable activity by these people is bogus and driven only by self-regard. One man's answer: Eliminate the charitable deduction, drop—or flatten—the top tax rate and total giving will rise, not fall. Giving is what Americans do, at all income levels.
It becomes clearer by the day that Barack Obama's worldview is that if money isn't spent by the federal government, it's somehow irrelevant. What began with the $800 billion stimulus in 2009 has turned into a personal compulsion to fund his galaxy of public "investments," such as high-speed rail and biofuels research.
His trivial-sounding suggestion that people, like him, should be willing to pay "a little more" is almost surely a downpayment on future requests for tax-like transfers from a much broader swath of incomes to his own foundation, the federal budget.
Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid (and now ObamaCare) are federal entitlement programs that sit at the center of a historic and complex problem of public finance. To speak out about that problem should in no sense expose anyone to moral denunciation by the president of the United States.
1a)Obama's Real Strategy
By James V Capua
Watching the machinations of Barack Obama, it seems as though he is creating what the Marxists call "internal contradictions."
Gas prices ready to breach the $5 mark, but a relentless Administration campaign against increased domestic energy production; midterm elections soundly rejecting the President and his party's command and control initiatives, but vigorous efforts to extend them in contempt not only of electoral, but legislative and judicial checks; foreign and defense policies that have produced nothing beyond betrayal of our interests and few remaining friends, but an eager embrace of fringe notions of a utopian internationalist order and our place in that order: every day brings new movements in this symphony of dissonance.
Unfortunately, we are not simply enjoying a clarifying dialectic; we are in the middle of a high stakes race. The objective in this race is not a place; it is a date: Election Day, November 6, 2012.
As the contending parties converge on the objective, the Administration understands that the conventional electoral calculus seems irreversible -- gas prices, inflation, unemployment, and geopolitical discomfiture will be joined in 2012 by the newfound fear of deficits and the national debt, and maybe even for the fate of constitutional government. Their response to this looming threat of defeat is a version of the old Cold War communist strategy of "talk talk, fight fight."
The talk element is employed to waste time, obscure tactical maneuvers, divert and divide the opposition, and sometimes even to draw fire onto decoy targets. Behind the screen of the talk is the "fight" or action element of the strategy -- executive, and to the extent still possible, fiscal measures calculated to bring the country by November 6, 2012 to a state in which an electoral majority, comprising both Obama partisans and opponents, is in such a high state of anxiety that they are unwilling to change presidents.
How does this work? First, there is the talk element. Obama and his people are drowning us in a talk tsunami. I am convinced that much of it is, for them, meaningless, meant merely to overload our capacity for outrage and give their house media "issues," ostensibly to debate each evening, but really for generating a constant supply of vehicles through which to diminish the opposition and generally desensitize the country to the enormity of what Obama is doing. The outrage fatigue grows and conservatives scramble to confront the dizzying torrent of talk, talk, with a tone increasingly shrill and desperation -- borne intramural wrangling. The release of the birth certificate, "Something special about the Resurrection," and other peculiar Easter omissions and commissions, the rise and disappearance of the political "civility" issue, keeping alive for months the fantasy of New York City trials for 9/11 conspirators, the great Fatwa against down time naps for drowsy air traffic controllers, UN international legal rights for Mother Earth, endless reprises of canards about the evil effects of conservative talk radio, the Ground Zero Mosque contretemps, TSA groping policy, attacking Arizona's immigration enforcement initiative, embracing Al Sharpton and giving the New Black Panthers a pass, Michelle's "You don't want fries with that!" campaign.
This is not to say some of these do not merit real concern, but Obama and his minions are merely playing with them; the best evidence for which is the airiness of their arguments and the insouciance with which they and their media mouthpieces flit from one to the next. The key here for the opposition -- forget about the talk. It is just talk. Republicans shouldn't play the other guy's game. They have neither the language nor the style, as Speaker Boehner most recently demonstrated when he trod on the oil price banana peel; he should concentrate on the fight fight.
When national Republicans respond to Obama talk talk in their accustomed mush mouthed, tentative, and bloodless way, they generally turn off those they need the most to join them -- including the libertarians and the generally politically inert 25-somethings, for whom irony and not outrage is the preferred tone. But show you can fight, win, and deliver and they will give you a chance. In the end, for all their eloquence, Lady Thatcher, John Paul II, and Ronald Reagan did not outtalk the Soviets; they showed they were prepared to outfight them, and that was enough.
As good as Obama is with talk talk, the fight fight component has thus far has been equally well-executed. Again, fight fight for Obama consists of using his executive power and remaining fiscal armory to create and maintain an atmosphere of pervasive anxiety. The calculation is that fear and anxiety will induce his remaining supporters to stick with him, and that enough of the forty-odd percent who claim to oppose him will pull the Democrat lever as well out of fear -- fear of retribution and fear of losing what shreds they have left of their security as one from the gaggle of lame Republican contenders attempts to reverse the damage Obama has done.
The elderly are the most obvious target. ObamaCare frightened them because of its potential negative impact on Medicare, and this presented a problem for the President. So Obama moved recently to postpone one of the more onerous elements of his health reform until after the election. With that flank secure he is free to focus the Medicare fears of the elderly on the Ryan budget blueprint.
On the union front, the Obama gang fostered maximum thuggery and rancor in Madison, as teachers became screaming harpies and schoolchildren pawns. The line was clearly drawn -- standing between fiscal prudence and public employee vested interests is Obama, so stick with him or else. What about the business community? Obama has assiduously used executive and regulatory power to show that crony capitalism works for his friends like GE, GM, and assorted connected green scam artists, but the retributive hand of his federal Myrmidons can be heavy indeed. One frightened hedge fund magnate recently was reduced to whistling past the graveyard: "I am sure, if we are really nice and stay quiet, everything will be alright and the president will become more centrist and that all his tough talk is just words...I mean, he really loves us and when he beats us, he doesn't mean it." (Notwithstanding, he has apparently begun contributing to Republicans. Now that is hedging.)
Some elements of an ever more pervasive sense of fear and anxiety are more directly attributable to Obama policies than others. Regardless, the parlous state of the nation overall, from what appears to be a fraying social fabric at fast food joints from coast to coast and soaring gold prices, to a feckless foreign policy allegedly necessitated by a reported presidential conviction "that the relative power of the U.S. is declining," reinforces the more directly-attributable fear and anxiety effects of fight fight. Some are scared to oppose, some are scared that with a change they will lose even more, some are scared that the price of saving the economy, our institutions, and restoring our international standing will be too high.
Right now the course of the campaign is being controlled by the Administration. The first step in wresting the initiative is to recognize their strategy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)The Debt Ceiling: Myths and Facts
Default won't happen, since we're collecting plenty in taxes to pay our interest obligations.
By EMIL W. HENRY JR.
Since 1962, the U.S. has reached its debt ceiling 74 times, about once every eight months. Every time, the ceiling has been raised with little notice outside Washington and little, if any, change in the trajectory of government spending. But when opposing parties have held the White House and Congress, the process has always resembled a Kabuki dance. What should be a debate becomes an exercise in scoring political points.
In one such exercise in 2006, congressional Democrats criticized the Bush deficits and publicly refused to raise the ceiling, yet they had every intention of doing so. Almost daily their leadership called Bush administration officials—including me, since I was the relevant point-person—to ensure they knew when the ceiling would be breached, so they could strike a deal before reaching the limit.
The difference today is that—in the wake of news like Standard & Poor's revising its outlook for the U.S. to "negative" and Pimco shedding U.S. Treasurys—the world is watching. Observers around the globe can expect to hear many old myths:
• The Treasury is certain that there will be wrenching dislocations in the capital markets if the ceiling is not raised. In fact, there is no secret Treasury analysis suggesting the world will collapse. Because we've always raised the ceiling, we simply don't know the consequences of not doing so. Four times the ceiling has been reached, remaining in place for months while Congress found consensus, and there was no disruption to the capital markets.
The real disruption would result from the sudden drop in federal spending and its significant impact on economic activity. But that would be partly offset by a stronger dollar, a healthier balance sheet, and the removal of the uncertainty which clouds our markets today. Near-term economic dislocation might be the painful medicine necessary for long-term health.
The Treasury will raid pension funds to avoid exceeding the debt ceiling.When the ceiling is reached but not exceeded, the Treasury has lawful tools to free up borrowing capacity and prolong the time until the ceiling's technical breaching. The Treasury correctly calls the tools "extraordinary" since they are out of the ordinary course of business, but in reality they are neither extreme nor dangerous.
Still, if Treasury deploys these tools, expect Democrats to claim that Republican intransigence is forcing the administration to take drastic measures. Such demagoguery can yield political fruit because Treasury's tools include postponing transfers of U.S. Treasurys that would otherwise go to pension funds such as the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
But Treasury would be required to restore these funds upon any budget agreement: No retiree will lose a penny by virtue of the Treasury's technical use of its time-tested tools.
It is critical that we not default, but we don't have to. Hitting the ceiling means that we can spend only what we collect in taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, tax revenues for 2011 will be around $2.2 trillion, with net interest on the debt costing $225 billion. We can afford that interest and therefore not default. Also, Congress could pass legislation requiring the government to honor interest payments before any other expense, thereby avoiding a technical default.
Not raising the current ceiling would please our creditors who, like all lenders, care simply that they be paid timely interest and principal. Leaving the ceiling in place and restricting further debt would, in the long run, make that more likely.
But the reality is that the debt ceiling will be raised once again. By law, Congress must pick a specific number, which will be the subject of intense negotiation behind the scenes. Those negotiations will also determine the timing of the next debt ceiling debate. If past is prologue, that could be during the election year of 2012.
Mr. Henry, the CEO of Henry, Tiger, LLC, was an assistant secretary of the Treasury from 2005 to 2007.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)When will Obama crack in public?
Posted: April 19, 2011
by Mychal Massie
At a time when many Americans can barely afford Burger King and a movie, Obama boasts of spending a billion dollars on his re-election campaign. Questioned at a recent appearance about the spiraling fuel costs, Obama said, "Get used to it" – and with an insouciant grin and chortle, he told another person at the event, who complained about the effect high fuel prices were having on his family, to "get a more fuel-efficient car."
The Obamas behave as if they were sharecroppers living in a trailer and hit the Powerball, but instead of getting new tires for their trailer and a new pickup truck, they moved to Washington. And instead of making possum pie, with goats and chickens in the front yard, they're spending and living large at taxpayer expense – opulent vacations, gala balls, resplendent dinners and exclusive command performances at the White House, grand date nights, golf, basketball, more golf, exclusive resorts and still more golf.
Expensive, ill-fitting and ill-chosen wigs and fashions hardly befit the first lady of the United States. The Obamas have behaved in every way but presidential – which is why it's so offensive when we hear Obama say, in order "to restore fiscal responsibility, we all need to share in the sacrifice – but we don't have to sacrifice the America we believe in."
The American people have been sacrificing; it is he and his family who are behaving as if they've never had two nickels to rub together – and now, having hit the mother lode, they're going to spend away their feelings of inadequacy at the taxpayers' expense.
Obama continues to exhibit behavior that, at best, can be described as mobocratic and, at worst, reveals a deeply damaged individual. In a February 2010 column, I asked, "Is Obama unraveling?" I wrote that it was beginning to appear the growing mistrust of him and contempt for his policies was beginning to have a destabilizing effect on him.
At that time, I wrote that not having things go one's way can be a bitter pill, but reasonable people don't behave as he was behaving. He had insulted Republicans at their luncheon, where he had been an invited guest. I had speculated that was, in part, what had led him to falsely accuse Supreme Court justices before Congress, the nation and the world, during the 2010 State of the Union address.
It appeared, at that time, as if he were "fraying around the emotional edges." That behavior has not abated – it has become more pronounced. While addressing the nation, after being forced to explain the validity of his unilateral aggression with Libya, America witnessed a petulant individual scowling and scolding the public for daring to insist he explain his actions.
But during an afternoon speech to address the budget/debt, he took his scornful, unstable despotic behavior to depths that should give the nation cause for concern. Displaying a
dark psychopathy more representative of an episode of "The Tudors" television series, he invited Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to sit in the front row during his speech and then proceeded to berate both Ryan and Ryan's budget-cutting plan. Even liberal Democrats were put off by the act. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough questioned the sanity of Obama's actions.
Today, criticism is coming from all sides. A senior Democrat lawmaker said, "I have been very disappointed in [Obama], to the point where I'm embarrassed that I endorsed him. It's
so bad that some of us are thinking, is there some way we can replace him? How do you get rid of this guy?" ("Democrats' Disgust with Obama," The Daily Beast, April 15, 2011)
Steve McCann wrote: Obama's speech "was chock full of lies, deceit and crass fear-mongering. It must be said that [he] is the most dishonest, deceitful and mendacious person in a position of power I have ever witnessed" ("The Mendacity of Barack Obama," AmericanThinker.com, April 15, 2011).
McCann continued: "[His] performance was the culmination of four years of outright lies and narcissism that have been largely ignored by the media, including some in the conservative press and political class who are loath to call [him] what he is in the bluntest of terms: a liar and a fraud. That he relies on his skin color to intimidate, either outright or by insinuation [against] those who oppose his radical agenda only add to his audacity. It is apparent that he has gotten away with his character flaws his entire life, aided and abetted by sycophants around him. …"
With these being among the kinder rebukes being directed at Obama, and with people becoming less intimidated by his willingness to use race as a bludgeon, with falling poll numbers in every meaningful category and an increasingly aggressive tea-party opposition – how much longer before he cracks completely?
The coming months of political life are not going to be pleasant for Obama. Possessed by a self-perceived palatine mindset, that in his mind places him above criticism, how long before he cracks in public? Can America risk a man with a documented track record of lying and misrepresenting truth as a basic way of life, who is becoming increasingly more contumelious?
Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative
Man of the Year by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC,
Comcast Cable and talk radio programming nationwide. A former self-employed business owner of more than 30 years, Massie can be followed at mychal-massie.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Bernanke to Press: 'We’ve Made a Lot of Progress,' but Not Enough to Change Course
By Andrew Packer
More ways to share... Mixx Stumbled LinkedIn Vine Buzzflash Reddit Delicious Newstrust Technocrati Share: More . . . A A Email Us Print Forward Article
0diggsdiggIt was a news conference held by a central banker, full of empty words and invented phrases, signifying nothing new. A politician couldn’t have done better.
The Federal Reserve’s news conference today was a first for the notoriously secretive institution. It underscored demand for more scrutiny of the Fed following its asset purchase programs over the past two and a half years.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke used this news conference to affirm the Fed’s outlook on the economy, nothing the need to keep interest rates near zero for “an extended period.”
That’s Fed-speak for “more of the same.”
Rates aren’t going anywhere, and the Fed won’t shrink its balance sheet when its asset-purchase program ends in June.
As for inflation, it’s “transitory,” according to Bernanke — meaning he expects the recent increase to fade over time.
The numbers at the grocery store and the gas pump tell a different story.
Since the start of the year, gold has risen 7 percent. Silver has surged 49 percent. Grains and other agricultural commodities have risen an average of 15 percent. Oil prices have risen 19 percent.
The only thing that’s falling right now? According to the Case-Shiller Index, it's housing.
While the Fed’s stated goal is to create “price stability,” since the Fed came into being the value of the US dollar has been consistently debased. The dollar is currently at an all-time low when measured against the purchasing power of other currencies.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Forex traders are eyeing the dollar as a potential short if it continues to break through to new lows. When the dollar falls, everything from commodities to stocks rise in price.
Markets continued yesterday’s rally, reaching session highs during the conference. That signals an expectation that the Fed will continue to provide liquidity as needed, even if it needs a new name.
The Fed’s other goal, promoting full employment, hasn’t been successful either. Bernanke noted that the unemployment situation is the worst of the post-World War II era, although there’s been a slight decline in unemployment since the beginning of the year.
While Bernanke heralded the lack of deflation and the slight decline in unemployment as progress, he admitted that there’s still a long way to go and economic growth remains weak.
Bernanke also mentioned during the conference that he’s an open advocate of transparency, and that markets would note the Fed’s planned actions and make price adjustments accordingly.
The markets heard Bernanke, loud and clear. It’s still risk-on for markets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)How Leon Panetta could change Washington as next Defense secretary
By Anna Mulrine
The dynamics he faces and the internal politics he must confront
Among President Obama's greatest national security challenges has been deciding who will replace Defense Secretary Robert Gates, as the widely popular Pentagon chief prepares to leave his post this summer.
Coming to that decision has involved a delicate confluence of considerations. Who is suitably steeped in defense policy matters? Who will have credibility both with the White House and within the halls of the Pentagon? And equally important, how will a new Defense secretary affect the balance of power within Mr. Obama's cabinet?
The withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, scheduled to begin this summer, has no doubt factored into the deliberations about a defense chief. That official, and the entire national security team, will also have to grapple with the continued US presence in Iraq, the nuclear ambitions of Iran, and something closer to home: the difficult decisions that the Pentagon leader will have to make about the defense budget.
The White House has confirmed that today Obama will name Leon Panetta, currently director of the Central Intelligence Agency, as the next Defense secretary. And Gen. David Petraeus, now the top US commander in Afghanistan, will take Mr. Panetta's place at the CIA.
It remains to be seen whether Panetta, like Secretary Gates himself, will align closely with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in defense policy debates, or with Vice President Joe Biden, who has lobbied hard to step up the pace of the departure of US troops from Afghanistan.
As it stands now, Gates and Secretary Clinton are "an extraordinarily powerful team," says retired Army Lt. Col. John Nagl, who heads the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank that has served as a recruiting ground for the Obama administration. "They're very pragmatic, and they've gained strength from reinforcing each other and from developing what appears to be a very genuine rapport."
This rapport was not necessarily Obama's chief aim when he assembled his cabinet. He subscribed to a philosophy that involved facilitating debate "by bringing people together who weren't likely to agree with each other, and didn't have much of a relationship with him," says Stephen Biddle, an adviser to senior military officials including Petraeus and a defense policy analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. "In the next round, he may want to bring in people he has had more of a relationship with."
This could, in turn, portend policy changes. "The power narrative of this administration on security issues has been an alliance between Clinton and Gates against the vice president and the national security adviser," Dr. Biddle says. "From what I can tell, neither of the camps has ever persuaded the other of its views, and neither one has made much effort at breaking into the other's fortress. What you get is a series of compromised stalemates."
More shifts are in store for Obama's national security team. The current term of Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ends later this year. He is widely expected to be replaced by Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Today, Obama will also announce a new ambassador to Afghanistan: veteran diplomat Ryan Crocker.
For now, the role of the next Defense secretary looms largest. Someone more closely aligned with Mr. Biden, analysts point out, could conceivably spur a renewed push for a speedier withdrawal from Afghanistan. Panetta is a longtime friend of Biden, with whom he served in Congress, and they have a history of supporting each other in White House power struggles.
During his time at the CIA, Panetta has intensified drone strikes against insurgents in Pakistan — an approach that Biden, too, has supported.
Still, in Afghanistan, it's another matter whether a stepped-up US troop withdrawal makes political sense. Currently, the US public is relatively quiet on the issue, Biddle points out. Polls that find the pubic generally supports bringing troops home also find that those people "aren't paying that much attention to the war," he says.
Quicken the pace of US troop withdrawals, and the GOP has new ammunition. "It runs the risk of changing the politics of the war," says Biddle. "The controversy level could increase radically — and Republicans could decide it's a chance to attack the president as soft on terrorism." Staying the course in Afghanistan, then, seems a prudent move going into the 2012 election season, he adds.
News of the expected nominations was greeted with skepticism in some circles. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, for example, questioned the choice of Petraeus (who will retire from the military before assuming the CIA post). The general is more a "consumer" of intelligence than a producer, she argued. A White House official disputed this characterization, saying he was deeply steeped in intelligence matters.
In any event, his move is widely seen as a bid to bring further national security credibility to the administration. "Petraeus as CIA director brings complete fluency to the war in Afghanistan," Dr. Nagl says.
Petraeus is likely to support Biden's push for an advisory and counterterrorism-focused mission in Afghanistan — eventually. "Petraeus would argue that conditions on the ground need to be set first — from the insurgency being diminished and the Afghan security forces being strengthened" before the US military can do more advising and less fighting, Nagl says.
Ultimately, however, the new Defense secretary's agenda is likely to be driven less by wars half a world away and more by budget matters — a key concern for voters.
Panetta's experience as former director of the Office of Management and Budget is likely to be "his single most important skill set," Nagl says. "It's hard to imagine someone better for the job on paper."
Momentum has been gathering to make considerable reductions in the defense budget. "If Gates has cut away the fat" from much of military spending, "then increasingly we're cutting away at muscle," says Andrew Krepinevich, president for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment in Washington.
Yet the pressure for cuts comes at a time when security challenges are increasing, analysts like Dr. Krepinevich argue. The challenge for the White House will be thinking strategically about which priorities can be trimmed — and which cannot.
China, for example, "is engaged in a military buildup trying to shift the military balance" in the Pacific, says Krepinevich. "Are we going to be a counterbalance?"
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, who had been considered a possibility for the Defense secretary job, cited China on Wednesday as one of the most underestimated threats that the US military faces.
Also, the protests throughout the Middle East could mean changes in US relations. "Turkey, some former strong Arab allies like Egypt, and even Saudi Arabia are beginning to question their relationship with the United States," Krepinevich says.
Iraq, too, remains an area of concern for the Pentagon — particularly if the Iraqi government requests that 20,000 US troops stay in the country after December, when all US troops there are slated to return home.
Moreover, Iran continues to pursue its nuclear ambitions.
These myriad pressures will keep building — and stress the Obama administration, Krepinevich says.
"Traditionally, when we've drawn down our military budget, it's been at the end of wars," he says. The current national security challenges are likely to mean that the "world will be a more dangerous place at the end of this decade than it is now."
Obama's team will also have challenges prioritizing national security issues amid economic strains. So the president may decide when he appoints the new Defense secretary, " 'Enough of this cabinet of rivals,' " says Biddle. That would probably lead to "less debate and more decision."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)The room was full of pregnant women with their partners. The class was in full swing. The instructor was teaching the women how to breathe and was telling the men how to give the necessary assurance to their partners at this stage of the pregnancy.
She said "Ladies, remember that exercise is good for you. Walking is especially beneficial. It strengthens the pelvic muscles and will make delivery that much easier. Just make several stops and stay on a soft surface like grass or a path."
She looked at the men in the room, "Gentlemen, remember, you're in this
together. It wouldn't hurt you to go walking with her."
The room suddenly got very quiet as the men absorbed this information.
Then a man at the back of the room slowly raised his hand.
"Yes?" answered the Instructor.
"I was just wondering if it would be all right if she carries a golf bag
while we walk?"
This kind of sensitivity just can't be taught.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment