About Me

Name: halthouse1
Email: exetertraining@aol.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

General McCrystal Muzzled

From The Political Commentator

If The President Can’t Speak To The General, No One Can!

“Ideally, it’s better for military advice to come up through the chain of command”, Jim Jones, National Security Advisor

Is The Chain Of Command Broken?

Now certainly President Obama could speak with him if he so desired, but that is obviously not the case. If General McCrystal, whose only axe to grind is winning the war and protecting his troops, wants to his formula for putting our best foot forward in Afghanistan heard, he has to present it himself. In public. Or see it ignored. Apparently, there are other military “experts” at the disposal of the President with even more experience and more desirable points of view then his own.

The chain of command appears to be good for a 25 minute talking to on a tarmac. Was this meeting about strategy, in which case 25 minutes seems a little light? Or was it a spanking for the general going public?

Who Are The Advisors That Have The Presidents Ear?

Well, Nancy Pelosi for one and Rahm Emanuel for another. Then you have a third, less obvious advisor that goes by the name Gallup as in Poll. This is a triumvirate of non-military experience who will try and guaranty different things to different constituencies. The President will get one thing, the military another and the American public and the world yet another.

For the President, the hemming and hawing, the indecision, stalling, pandering to the left, poll watching and desire to be the anti-Bush, will put him, at least for the time being, in a safer political position. It is decision by omission rather than by commission.  His stance does nothing for our troops or national security, but I suppose that is just politics.

Our military on the ground, as evidenced by the ambush and killing of eight soldiers in Nuristan, are up against an enemy that will do anything to advance the fortunes of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The well-documented rift between their commander on the ground and the commander in chief as well as the time it is taking to make a decision on a plan going forward, increases the danger and kills morale. The Taliban reads the papers and watches CNN. They are well aware of the Presidents lack of resolve and ties to the liberal left. They understand that ambushes and the killing of U.S. troops will serve to give the cover to the administration to pull troops out and go to surgical bombing that didn’t work in the past. The end result will be a total Taliban takeover of the country.

Finally, let’s take a look at the impact on the American public and the world community. We know the desires of A-Qaeda and the Taliban. Kill any and all non-believers wherever they are. Use any means at their disposal to accomplish this. Train those who for one reason or another can be indoctrinated into a philosophy by which suicide bombing of innocent men, women and children is not only acceptable, but a desirable way to go. They will turn Afghanistan in a training ground from which attacks will be launched all over the world. They will look to destabilize and already unstable nuclear Pakistan even further. A loss in Afghanistan will mean a much less safe world.
The Problems Are Many

The problems for achieving a good outcome in Afghanistan are many. What we do not need is for the war to be politicized and run from the standpoint of what it is the American public wants, and what decision will in the short-term lead to re-election. The stakes are far to high for that. The world for a long time to come may be defined by the outcome of this war if this war is allowed to turn into a defeat for us and a win for the terrorists.

Mr. President, take the reigns that you have been given and do what is right for the country, and not for the constituency that put you in office. Forget the left-right argument and do what is right for the country. Listen to your military advisors, and not your political ones!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Do Obama And Richie Cunnungham Have In Common?

FromThe Political and Financial Markets Commentator "Happy Days" Are Here Again? I have been talking for some time about the fact that the goal of President Obama is to be well liked in the world. To be the anti-Bush. To make no waves, speak the words that everyone wants to hear, promote an agenda of diplomacy no matter what with the hint that there is the potential for strong action behind it. Does anyone really believe that to be the case. President Bush was hated around the world, but our enemies knew that he carried a big stick. Does anyone fear Obama and his sidekicks Pelosi and Reid? It is critical as a superpower for that to be the case. As an example, to play diplomacy games with Iran is a losing proposition if they know that they can just string us along with no fear of the end game. All because he wants to make friends. Just like Richie, when we need a little more Fonz! The Cunningham Effect (RealClearPolitcs) "Happy Days pivoted around the friendship between two very different American teenagers, Richie Cunningham and Fonzie Fonzarelli. Richie was clean-cut, wholesome, an absolute goody-goody, and everybody loved him. Fonzie, especially in the early series, was a tough nut. Greased-back hair, always astride his outlaw motorbike, decked out in Marlon Brando T-shirt, Fonzie inspired fear and envy in men, and swoons among the gals. Everyone was frightened of Fonzie. He could banish bad guys with a look. In one episode, Fonzie tried to teach Richie his style. Richie practised the grimaces, the flexes, the stares, but alas the bad guys were not impressed and certainly not deterred. In the midst of a desperate scrape, Richie turned to Fonzie imploringly and asked: Why are my deadly looks, threatening flexes and strategic grimaces having no effect? Oh yeah, Fonzie replied, I forgot to tell you. For all that to work, once in your life you have to have hit someone. You cannot imagine a deeper strategic insight. At some point, Obama is going to have to do something seriously unpleasant to someone..." Does he have it in him?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Whose Side Is The President On?

From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator, Mike Haltman

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2009

Whose Side Is The President On?

Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
The War On Terror Fought The Liberal Way: Interrogation Techniques

Spiderman Bouncy House
The Prisoners Cell Should Always Be Right Next To The Interrogation Room ( this will keep the prisoner from getting too tired which could be a violation of the Geneva Convention)

The New FBI Interrogation Manual List Of Do's And Don'ts

When we have captured high value terrorist suspects, there are strict rules of etiquette and engagement to be followed. 

Any information that cannot be obtained through these methods we will just have to do without (no matter how many lives this information might save).

1) Always say may I to the prisoner, or at the very least have a smile on your face so as not to scare them beyond a reasonable point. If the prisoner ever asks you to stop what you are doing you must always comply immediately. Remember that we must cater to the far left.

2) When in doubt about the technique you are about to use, ask yourself if the ACLU would use it, and if they would not, stop

3) Cross check #2 by asking yourself if other, more conservative countries seriously concerned with national security would use the technique, and if they would, stop as well. ***(If there are techniques which those countries would not bother using because they are worthless at getting information, you can use those with no restrictions)

4) Always remember that the good of the one is more important than the well being of the masses.

5) Remember that an interrogator should always cover the butt of their superiors by making sure that no prisoner ever has a reason or opportunity to complain, thus avoiding the wrath of world opinion raining down onto the United States.

6) Any technique used successfully during the Bush administration, which has helped to keep the country safe since 9/11, is no longer to be used.

7) The absolute harshest technique that can be used would be the sound torture of forcing the suspect to listen to the shrill screams of Hillary Clinton, or the inane blathering of either Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, but not both as this would be construed as cruel and inhuman punishment. The names of various other politicians may be substituted without warning.

8) No water, nor even the word water can be used near the interrogation room. The new phrase in the event a glass of water is requested, will now be a Left Wing Cocktail.

9) At all times the first consideration will always be the prisoner, and at no times will the safety of the citizens of the United States or the world ever cross your mind.

10) Lastly, remember that this is the United States controlled by the Democrats. We will play the interrogation process to lose, but at the same time we will make sure that countries around the world like us more now than they did the last 8 years. 

If All Of These Restrictions Cause Us To Fail And An Attack On Our People Takes Place, We Will Do What We Always Do And Blame It On The Failed Policies Of The Last 8 Years. 

Memorize these restrictions and then eat them to insure plausible deniability.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Unfortunately, all of the national security plans of the Obama Administration are no joke. In fact quite the opposite!Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Tale Of Two Bows (U.K. versus Saudi): Let's Go To The Videotape

From <a href="http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com">The Political and Financial Markets Commentator</a>

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

A Tale Of Two Bows (U.K. versus Saudi): Let's Go To The Videotape

Is It A Bow, Or Is It Not A Bow. You Make The Call!

Like in any heavyweight fight, we always have the tale of the tape that gives us the particulars of the combatants. Reach, height, weight, record, knockouts, wins by decision and more.

In the case of the controversy over whether President Obama did or didn't bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, we have heard excuses from the White House that it was not a bow, but merely a height issue. After all, President Obama is much taller that the King and in order to shake both of his hands bending down would be necessary. However, upon looking at the tape, it turns out that he is even taller than Queen Elizabeth ll.

President Obama: 6' 1 1/2 "
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia: 5' 6"
Queen Elizabeth ll of England: 5' 4"


As always in politics, the attempted cover-up is always worse than the indiscretion (although maybe not in this case). Simply step up to the plate and let us know why you would choose one or the other monarchs to bow to, but more importantly, as President of the most powerful country in the world why you would be bowing to anyone.

This event does not have the impact or importance of the rescue of Captain Phillips from the Somali pirates, but perhaps it gives a look into the goings on within the mind of President Obama. Let's go to the videotape.





So as the tape clearly shows, the Queen of England received a nod and the King of Saudi Arabia received a bow from the waist.

Handshake, nod, bowing from the waist, isn't it all the same? Is it really that important? Maybe, maybe not.

For one, after winning our freedom from the monarchy in Britain, we earned the right to not have to bow to anyone again.

Second is that while Saudi Arabia is an ally, they are also proponents of Sharia law, one of the strictest forms of Islam and one which metes severe and often deadly punishment for crimes, many of which we would consider to be minor offenses.

If Michelle Obama lived in Saudi Arabia, she would be forced to live life in a much different way than she does as First Lady.

"...Under Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, women face severe discrimination, particularly in matters like education, employment and the justice system. Although they make up 70% of university enrollment, women comprise only 5% of the Saudi workforce. They cannot travel abroad, be admitted into a hospital, be examined by a doctor or leave the house without permission or in the company of an immediate male relative. There is no basis for such restrictions in Islam...

...In an embarrassing display of law enforcement, the Saudi government convicted and sentenced the widow to 40 lashes and four months imprisonment for mingling with her late husband's 24-year-old nephew and his friend, after she had asked them to deliver some bread to her house. (Since her husband's death, she often asks others for help. The Saudi government claims that she has sinned.)"(Daily News)

The point for President Obama to understand is that every action that he takes and every move that he makes is being scrutinized by the entire world. He needs to explain his actions in an honest and clear way, and not rely on his minions to conjure up excuses that do not make any sense.

The cover-up is always worse, particularly in the age of 24 hour news. Sphere: Related Content
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The G-20: Anarchists and Correspondents Speak Out

Watching The News: The Bias Is Sometimes To Much To Take
Before getting to the G-20 itself, I have to say that the coverage from some "news" outlets is unbelievable in it's biased love affair with President Obama. I know that this comes as no great surprise, but sometimes it gets to the point where it has to be brought up.
 
John Harwood is the Chief Washington Correspondent of CNBC and a political writer for the New York Times. I watch him report on CNBC, only because I watch the ticker on the bottom. As a correspondent, it is his job to report the news, not to invoke his opinion of the news. That is not the case and at times it is to much to bear.
 
The commentary Wednesday was that the throngs of protesters in downtown London stood in stark contrast to the throngs outside of Buckingham Palace expressing their adulation for President Obama, ostensibly proving the strength of his popularity not only in the United States, but in England and the rest of Europe as well. If that is the case John Harwood, then the protesters and anarchists must be an indicator of popular U.K. and European thought as well.
 
More likely, these are both relatively small groups of people drawn by a specific occasion. Each could be in the majority of English thought or minority, but it is not John Harwoods place to make that determination. I would also assume that not every person outside of the Palace was pro-Obama or pro-United States, but in this case of consistent partisanship, that possibility was not mentioned.

Anarchists and Financial Fools Day
 
In a world that is feeling the pain and frustration of the financial crisis, the protests that went on Wednesday in London by anarchists and other groups was for the most part non-violent, although uniform in the condemnation of the capitalist way of doing business.
 
The first thing that I was struck by is that as non-participants in capitalism, the protesters have more than enough time to travel to these summits and demonstrate.
 
The second thing that I was struck by was that it seemed as if there were some non-anarchist types interviewed who also seemed to question whether an alternative system might be better.
 
The problem as I see it is the potential for these types of protests and waves of dissatisfaction to slip from fringe groups to the regular folks who begin to understand the extreme depth and ramifications of the problem. These world leaders and rainmakers need to solve or stem the tide of the problem before the term social unrest spreads to groups that we would never have anticipated that it could spread to.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The North Korea Missile Launch Discussion Continued

From The Political and Financial Markets Commentator at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com
 
Morality Update: 5:00 PM ESPN Around The Horn
 
Maybe a little early in the day and on a program watched by kids. Right or wrong?

North Korean Planned Rocket Launch
 
As discussed yesterday, North Korea is moving ahead with it's plans to launch what they say is merely a rocket designed to put a satellite into orbit. The suspicion is that this will serve as a test for a rocket that would be used to power a long-range missile that would be capable of reaching Alaska. There is also speculation that the launch may actually be used to test the Taepodong-2 missile (the picture below is only a dramatization). To keep the world in suspense the top of the rocket is reported to be covered.
 
 20061029-040416-IMG_5009
 
This clearly represents a test of the resolve of the Obama administration in terms of response to the potential provocation, and it appears that we will move on down the rhetoric road which will utilize the U.N. as our mouthpiece. The White House said that any launch would be a violation of a U.N. ban and result in serious consequences. Secretary of State Clinton warned that a violation could keep the talks on hold that would supply North Korea with aid for decommissioning it's nuclear capability. Does the leadership of North Korea care that much about aid that might be of help to the average citizen? I don't know about that. "We intend to raise this violation of the Security Council resolution, if it goes forward, in the U.N.," Clinton said Wednesday in Mexico City. "This provocative action in violation of the U.N. mandate will not go unnoticed, and there will be consequences." (Townhall.com)

I am sure this threat does not have Pyongyang quaking in its boots. This is a rock and a hard place moment for the Obama administration, and the rest of the world will be watching!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »