Never thought of the above but maybe Obama paved the way. Also, if we do not care about our borders and illegal immigration why should we care where a president happens to be born? Particularly since we have rejected everything about Americans being virtuous and because we are a racist nation. Anchors away my boy?
And:
Today we heard from JOKE about what is critically important and defines their concept of leadership - wear masks.
The opposition mentioned Israel and a nation that did not want a relationship has decided it was time to take their head out of the sand and do what Jordan and Egypt did eons ago.
Masks versus diplomatic success. I vote for the latter though I have nothing against masks.
Finally:
While busy with masks, JOKE was insulting Catholics.
Catholic Leader: Kamala Harris ‘Ringleader of the Anti-Catholic Bullying’ in Democrat Party
When you begin something you finish it otherwise you live to fight again. Don't mean to be vulgar but when you go to the bathroom you are not finished if you do not wipe yourself.
Bush 41 was a decent man, he had a good heart, he was a patrician and was raised steeped in New England values. He was a patriot. That said, he also could be tentative .
The Gulf War Ended Too Soon
Bush was right not to go all the way to Baghdad, but he should have backed Shiite rebels in southern Iraq.
By Paul Wolfowitz
Thirty years ago this month, on Aug. 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The U.S. mounted an impressive response, but strategic errors at the end of the Gulf War had consequences the world still lives with today.
As Defense Secretary Dick Cheney’s representative on the Deputies Committee, I had the privilege to observe President George H.W. Bush from the second row. I have nothing but admiration for Bush’s leadership in responding to an aggressive act virtually no one had anticipated. Swallowing an entire country and its oil wealth shocked the world. While it left no doubt about the danger Saddam posed, it made the challenge all the more formidable. In less than a week from a cold start, Bush put together the basic elements of a political-military strategy to force Saddam to relinquish his conquest—peacefully if possible, by force if necessary.
Bush recognized that he could do little, and nothing militarily, without Saudi support. But he also understood the dilemma at the heart of Riyadh’s thinking. For them, the one thing worse than dealing with an aggressive Saddam on their own would be to accept U.S. support only to see it waver, as Jimmy Carter did with Iran and Ronald Reagan in Lebanon.
Bush ignored advice to play down the size of the force the U.S. would have to deploy to defend Saudi oil fields. He authorized Mr. Cheney to tell them the full extent of what was needed. The Saudi ambassador swallowed hard, then said: “At least we know you’re serious.”
The president reinforced that seriousness by his spontaneous statement to reporters: “This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait.” Implicitly it committed him to taking military action if all else failed. Asked where that phrase came from, Bush replied: “That’s mine. . . . That’s what I feel.”
Throughout the next seven months, Bush made repeated difficult decisions crisply after consulting with his advisers. Some involved great risks, and often the advisers didn’t all agree. By the beginning of March 1991, Saddam’s army was evicted from Kuwait with miraculously low American and coalition casualties.
But unlike his principal advisers, Bush was not “exhilarated” by the outcome. “How can I be exhilarated,” he said to reporters, “when Saddam Hussein is still in power?” That unhappiness, only briefly displayed publicly, comes through clearly in Jon Meachem’s authorized 2015 biography of Bush, who allowed the author access to his diaries.
“I don’t feel euphoria,” Bush wrote on Feb. 28, 1991, the day after the combatants announced a cease-fire. “Hitler is alive, indeed, Hitler is still in office, and that’s the problem. . . . American people elated, [but] I have no elation.” What Mr. Meachem calls “Bush’s postwar despondency” was rooted in the “failure to bring about Saddam’s fall” and some specific contributing failures.
Bush regretted the decision not to force Saddam to the surrender table at Safwan, just across the Kuwaiti border, where U.S. and Iraqi troops had a standoff after the withdrawal and cease-fire. “More substantively,” Meachem writes, “when the rebellions against Saddam began after Safwan, everything went wrong. The United States did nothing to support the insurgents, and the uprising was put down in part by Iraqi helicopters,” which Saddam’s army had been allowed to keep on the pretext that it needed them because the bridges had been destroyed, not strafe and drop mustard gas on the Shiite rebels.
Historians examining how that happened need to ask why the formal decision structure, which Bush had used masterfully until then to make critical decisions almost daily, broke down at the very end.
I still believe Bush was right not to risk American lives pursuing the retreating enemy into Iraq or all the way to Baghdad, particularly since Iraqi defenses against Iran had stiffened when on their own territory. It turned out also that several Republican Guard divisions were still intact.
But there were at least three alternative courses of action that should have been considered, separately or together, as part of a postcombat strategy: Demand that Saddam or one of his principal subordinates surrender personally; secure United Nations Security Council endorsement of the large “disengagement” zone along Iraq’s entire southern border, which our U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering had proposed; and insist that Saddam stop using at least his helicopters, if not his tanks as well, to slaughter the Shiite rebels in southern Iraq.
The helicopters were a focus of attention because Iraq had been permitted to keep them on the pretext that they were needed for transportation because of the damage done by coalition bombing. At that point, the fate of the rebellions was the single most important issue for the future of Iraq and for the reputation of the U.S. in the eyes of the Iraqi people. The president himself, personally and publicly (at a March 13 press conference in Canada), had warned Iraq to stop using helicopters against the rebels.
Moreover, Saudi leaders had urged Secretary of State James Baker, during his early March visit to Riyadh, to support the Iraqi rebels. They said, as I remember, that Saddam was still dangerous, “like a wounded snake,” and added that “we’re not afraid of the Shia of Iraq,” who are “Arabs and not Persians,” and had remained loyal to Iraq during eight years of war with Iran.
None of those alternatives would have caused the coalition to collapse—particularly with the Saudis on board—nor would they have required the U.S. to occupy Baghdad. In combination, they would have been an appropriate response to Iraq’s treacherous abuse of the permission it had obtained to fly helicopters.
Supporting the rebellions had risks of its own, but those risks should have been deliberated carefully, as so many others had been over the course of the preceding seven months. But leaders were anxious to end the war and avoid mission creep that would get the U.S. stuck in Iraq, so they weren’t. As a result, Saddam played a cat-and-mouse game that kept the U.S. stuck anyway for 12 more years and beyond.
There was time to allow the president to think things through, but it wasn’t used. The lesson: If time is on your side, don’t succumb to a self-generated sense of urgency. Take the time to examine whether there are better outcomes than simply abandoning “endless wars” in the mistaken belief that you won’t be forced back to war again.
Mr. Wolfowitz, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, served as U.S. ambassador to Indonesia (1986-89), undersecretary of defense for policy (1989-93) and deputy defense secretary (2001-05).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ A Clinton appointed judge does something unusual. He upholds "due process" concept for accused students. Yeah, Trump's Sec. of Education, Ms. De Vos, is one radical female. Oh , she also believes in school choice. Obviously she is a "white supremacist" who hates blacks.
DeVos’s Sexual-Assault Rule Prevails
The new standard for due process on campus survives in court.
The Editorial Board
One of the stakes in November’s election is the fate of the Trump Administration’s due-process reforms for campus sexual-assault cases. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s new rule goes into effect Friday, and this week it passed its first legal tests.
New York Attorney General Letitia James sued to stop the rule and sought a preliminary injunction. Federal Judge John Koeltl, a Bill Clinton appointee, denied the injunction this week on grounds that the department had followed proper procedure in drafting the rule and would likely prevail on the merits.
The rule defines sexual harassment under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and requires schools to set up grievance processes for handling complaints. Colleges must allow accuser and accused to choose advisers who can cross-examine witnesses. Both will receive the same notice of allegations and are given the same right to appeal.
“Rather than harming students,” Judge Koeltl wrote, “the Rule has the potential to benefit” both accuser and accused because they “are given greater assurance that if they prevail in the grievance proceeding, that result will not be overturned because the process did not comply with due process.” Meanwhile, federal Judge Carl Nichols ruled on similar grounds Wednesday against a challenge to the new rule by 17 state attorneys general.
The rulings are vindication for Mrs. DeVos for following the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in writing the rule. The Obama Administration, led on this issue by Vice President Joe Biden, disregarded the APA by writing “Dear Colleague” guidance to schools that eschewed public comment. The Trump Administration reviewed nearly 125,000 comments before making its rule final.
The downside of the long process is that the timing means the rule could be vulnerable to being overturned by the Congressional Review Act if Democrats run Congress and the White House next year. That would be a tragedy for due process and justice on campus.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Love this Senator. Sad he is not returning. The good ones get discouraged. Can't blame them.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Vote appeal. I love it when a child supports his father.
My daddy was the Vice President of the United States. My daddy helped to cover up many of my crimes.
My daddy helped me get jobs that I wasn’t qualified to have.
Fighting for Freedom,
Charles Nelson
And:
Only a matter of time before discrimination is embraced by blacks. Man is flawed and intolerant. God has always tested us and found us wanting.
Hi Fellow Patriot,
Black Lives Matter have the goal to redefine every area of America to reflect their hateful messages and teachings.
What they want to see is the total subjugation of people with lighter skin. They want to enslave people who are not dark enough to make the cut.
Fighting for Freedom,
Mike Kinsman
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment