Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Foreign Affairs & National Security’ Category

Here’s another look into the struggle between President Obama on one side and General Petreaus and Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the other on whether or not to remove U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months. General Jack Keane said recently on NewsHour (see video below) that “no one wants to squander those gains [we have made in Iraq].” He is implying, of course, that anyone [named Obama] who precipitously withdraws the troops would be making a foolish mistake.

Investigative journalist Gareth Porter counters that argument by giving all of the credit for the stability in Iraq to Iran and making a wild claim that senior leadership in the U.S. military is engaging in a “false narrative” by claiming that they had anything to do with it. Of course, in using that kind of fantastic logic, it would follow that 1) Iraq’s stability would not be undermined by an early troop withdrawal, and 2) that Iran, not the U.S., are the good guys in Iraq.

Interestingly, Porter made the same argument to President Nixon 40 years ago by proposing that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam would not cause a bloodbath. He was wrong then and he will be wrong again.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said today that the U.S. economic downturn is much worse than political leaders admit and predicted the recovery will take three to five years.

The financial meltdown points to “a much more profound problem than people think” as American industries and education have lost ground to China and India, Gingrich said.

The former Georgia lawmaker told a reporters’ breakfast that the one upside to the crisis is that it might prod reform.

“This is frightening enough that you could have a genuine national conversation about fundamental change,” he said.

Source. If I’ve learned one thing following the GOP, it’s that we should answer any mention of “China,” “India,” “reform” or “national conversation” with one hand on our wallets and the other hand on the Constitution. It boggles the mind to imagine the sort of “fundamental change” Gingrich might be calling for. His comments were just vague enough to be frightening.

The article goes on to describe Gingrich’s evolving view of Sarah Palin, hence the category.

Read Full Post »

Newt Gingrich did not, as the title of this article suggests, attack Obama for caring too much about civil liberties.  Here’s what Gingrich said:

“I think people have a good reason to be worried about the overall tenor of the way they’re trying to move back to ‘civil liberties matter more than protecting America.'”

What he means is that coddling America’s enemies by giving them the same rights that Americans are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights impedes our government’s efforts to protect its people. I understood that. The issue has been debated so often that he took the liberty of using some verbal shorthand. Perhaps if he had spelled it out for the presumptuous, that “protecting the civil liberties of our enemies matters more to the Obama administration than protecting Americans,” he might not have been characterized as a fascist.

Of course, that would have made no difference to the multitudes of Americans who paradoxically believe that America’s enemies deserve to be protected by our constitution, no matter that our government’s ability to protect its citizens would be (and perhaps now is) greatly diminished by doing so. We certainly live in strange times when people care more about protecting their enemies than protecting themselves.

Read Full Post »

This is the first installment of what I hope will be many. As I examine the public pronouncements of the potential GOP Presidential candidates, I will look for actions/statements/tendencies that would be conducive to both winning the Republican nomination and taking on the Pied Piper of the Progressives in the 2012 General Election.

How To Run For President In 2012: Rule #1 – Distance Yourself From George W. Bush While Keeping Your Conservative Credentials Intact.

[South Carolina Senator Lindsey] Graham issued a statement saying he doesn’t have a problem with closing Guantanamo but wants to make sure it’s planned carefully and handled in a way that protects national security.

[Source]

Read Full Post »

This article:

The purchase of a piece of property in America, a single-family house, a PUD (planned unit development) or a condo (flat within a condominium) will guarantee you and your family a green card. This is one of the extreme measures implemented to help stall the meteoric fall of the United States economy in light of the economic crisis, Bulgarian weekly Stroitelstvo Gradut reported on January 15.

Thirty-five accredited investors will have the opportunity to acquire real estate in the south-eastern state of Florida – by purchasing a house – they will be granted a green card for permanent residence and right of employment for the buyer himself and his/her entire family.

Additional conditions are that the prospective buyer must have a clean criminal record, a good credit record, the ability to present and prove a decent monthly income, and no outstanding financial obligations or credit liabilities. The purchase itself can be done either with cash, bank transfer or monthly instalments, but the financial resource must be proven legitimate.

The US government has allocated 10 000 such visas nation-wide for potential investors in real esate, under a programme approved by the US Congress. Florida’s is the first such programme that has actively been given the green light to commence.

is tying Michelle Malkin’s stomach in knots. Most of her commenters are suffering indigestion as well. I must be missing something.

A question for those of you who are doubled over at the waist after reading this piece:

  1. Do you not think that 10 months of housing inventory is a bad thing?  Would you not like to dump some of that inventory on “accredited investors?”
  2. Does the specter of, God forbid, another terrorist attack preclude you from agreeing to 10,000 visas for “potential investors in real estate?”  If so, does the “clean criminal record” requirement not ease your mind?  Recall our stock answer any time the left complained of executive overreach: “No one expected that after seven years we would not have been attacked again, so the administration is getting something right.”
  3. Or is your concern one of lost jobs?  Because throwing 10,000 real estate investors into an economy of 303 million does not seem statistically relevant.
  4. Or is your concern something else?

Relevance statement: I’m filing this one under Florida governor Charlie Crist.

Disclosure: I’m not 100% sold on this green-for-green policy either. But for much different reasons, apparently.

Read Full Post »

As a follow-up to this post, writer Jason Corely responds to the Joint Operations Environment report. Recall that “In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.”

Corely’s article fills in some of the details and discusses alternatives:

If a hardline response on government employees were adopted by Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón by jailing and firing personnel caught up in corruption scandals, some fear that the state of affairs are so bad that it would be impossible to feasibly make a difference without disrupting government functions. Perhaps, a suspension of civil liberties and military order would be a better and safer alternative? Speculation is that that things may get that bad in Mexico.

[…]

Former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich also joined in on the potential disaster and seriousness of the situation in Mexico. He told several business leaders in Newport Beach, CA: “We have to rethink our entire strategy for working with Mexico. The war that’s under way in Mexico is an enormous national security threat to the US. If we allow the drug dealers to win we will have a nightmare on our southern border and no amount of fence and no amount of national security would compensate for the collapse of Mexico.”

Read Full Post »

Mexico is one of two countries that “bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse,” according to a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.

The command’s “Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)” report, which contains projections of global threats and potential next wars, puts Pakistan on the same level as Mexico. “In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.

That bears repeating: our military equates Pakistan and Mexico, in terms of the states to watch for rapid and sudden collapse.

Relevance statement: knock on wood, but a collapse south of the Rio Grande would be a tragic — and very real — foreign policy challenge for President Obama. And therefore a marquee issue in the 2012 contest. And since Texans can see Mexico from their front porches, Ron Paul should be considered a front runner on that basis alone.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »