All he needs to do is resign the Presidency, and then he could travel the world apologizing.

Let’s see, where could he go?  How about Japan?  There he could apologize for starting horrific wars, using biological weapons, killing millions.  Next, he could go to Russia to apologize for killing millions.  After that, he could go to China to apologize for killing millions.  Then off to Cambodia to apologize for killing millions.  On to Rwanda, Germany, North Korea….  

The strange thing is, unlike Obama, these countries are not interested in apologizing to the rest of the world.  How curious.  Obama clearly has his work cut out for him.  So many countries.  So much difficult history.  Yet, they have little interest in describing their past sins, let alone apologizing for them.

Thank goodness America has Obama.  He is a leader unlike the rest.  Obama is ready to prostrate himself, to bow before Saudi Kings, and to beg forgiveness from America’s enemies at a moment’s notice.  No other country’s leader would do these things.

In fact, he does it so well, it is really selfish for America to keep him as president. He needs to be shared with the world.  After he resigns, he could apologize for so many things from great injustices like the Ukrainian famine to Hello Kitty to the macarena. He needs to get started immediately.

There are three reasons to be concerned with nuclear North Korea:  1) They will use the weapons against the U.S. or our allies; 2) they will start a proliferation chain (e.g. Japan); and 3) they will provide the material, know-how or bombs to terrorists or other countries.

The implications of a nuclear North Korea are profound.  The United States has wrestled with this problem since 1991 and no administration has found a good solution.  Each has preferred to kick the can down the road and hope that the regime collapses.

That policy has not worked.  North Korea has only grown its nuclear capabilities.  There is every reason to believe this will continue.  The administration seems to adopt the action of its predecessor, watching North Korea closely to ensure no bombs or components leave.  That is an imperfect solution because North Korea gets stronger, with more fissile material to sell.  It also places a huge burden on the U.S. intelligence community.  But it is the only practical solution and so is good enough for the present circumstances.

So how will history judge President Bush.  The Left will write the history, so the answer is “not well.”  Iraq will be figured prominently, as indeed it should.  But the positive and negative aspects of Iraq deserve attention, although the former will not receive their due.  The calculus will be Bush=Iraq, unless Iraq is a stable, good ally.

Conservatives should be upset with the Bush presidency.  For most of it, Republicans held the Hill.  Yet, no progress was made stemming the tide of illegal immigration, eliminating affirmative action, or any of the other measures that would please the Republican base.  Just the reverse, Republicans in power govern like moderate Democrats on domestic and social issues.

After 9/11, Bush had a chance to make progress in domestic policy.   For example, to illustrate the absurdity and perniciousness of multiculturalism and to restore sanity on immigration policy.  His great failing as a president was that he did not act when he had the opportunity.

The time is now to change the Republican leadership and restore conservative principles to the Party.

What was the Bush presidency?  A very good one in foreign and defense policy.  Leaving the ABM Treaty was a positive step.  One that allows America to be partially protected from ballistic missiles.  That work continues in Europe, with the construction of the European site for missile defense in the Czech Republic and Poland.  The list continues:  Forging the 9/11 coalition of states; de-escalating the tension between India and Pakistan; expanding NATO; forcing Libya to surrender its WMD and rolling up the A.Q. Khan network; calling attention to North Korea’s uranium enrichment facilities (started under Clinton); and readily assisting after natural disasters.

On domestic policy:  He was a failure–marked by lost opportunities to make progress.

What was the Bush presidency?  A Bush presidency.  You knew how he would govern in 2000.

Let us hope that he is not the last Republican president.

Seven years ago, America was under attack. America’s first responders, law enforcement, and emergency specialists responded to that attack. Our preparedness specialists provided guidance on the types of terrorist threats that we might be facing in the weeks that followed. Preparedness details about how to respond to potential Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) terrorist threats were distributed. America created a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other agencies to address the need for homeland security. Counterterrorism groups were created or expanded in the federal government and law enforcement; specialists in tactical areas were identified and recruited. From a military perspective, our National Guard patrolled major American airports and transportation hubs. On September 2001, Congress authorized the use of military force against those responsible the 9/11 attacks and nations that harbored such terrorists. A year later, Congress again authorized the use of military force, this time to address perceived threats by Iraq. America’s Homeland Security Department assessed potential terrorist targets and offered recommendations as to appropriate areas and types of threats that were the most likely and most vulnerable for “targeted” use homeland security funding and resources.
These resources were focused on tactical and targeted efforts to protect Americans and prevent terrorism. Such efforts were a reaction to the 9/11 attacks and the realization of the vulnerability of the American homeland to such attacks. Such reactive preparedness was and continues to be a priority for America. But we also need to reflect and gain a strategic awareness of the threat by asking who and what are we fighting, and why are they attacking us. We need to do more than just react, we need to plan, we need to think, and we need a real national strategy on the enemy.

Such strategic awareness and analysis is a part of any major endeavor. For our first responders today in an emergency circumstance, they try to think strategically. They will ask questions to triage an attack – is it an explosion, a fire, a chemical attack, a radiological attack? They will recommend actions, especially in an emergency situation, based on an understanding of the threat. Such strategic awareness and definition of the threat is imperative for effective actions by emergency responders.

Why isn’t such strategic awareness an imperative for America’s government leadership on the larger, ideological threat that is the basis for Jihadist terror attacks like 9/11?

Seven years after 9/11, most of our resources continue to remain focused exclusively on tactical measures and operations.

Seven years after 9/11, America’s governmental leadership still has no strategic definition of the enemy or its ideology.

Seven years after 9/11, America’s governmental leadership can’t even agree if they should use the word “Jihad.”

This exceptional commentary continues:

By our very identity as Americans, we have the obligation and the duty to confront those ideologies that are against equality and liberty, such as Islamic supremacism. We must mobilize our elected representatives and the American people in every area of life to take on this war of ideas. We must reveal those Islamic supremacist groups that seek to infiltrate America for what they are. We must not allow those who lack the courage or knowledge of what it means to be an American to represent us here in this country or to represent us to people around the world. We must demand that our government leaders acknowledge the ideological threat of Islamic supremacism to America. We must not tolerate leadership that continues to be in denial of this threat and that continues to refuse to develop a comprehensive, multi-faceted strategy against this threat.

In America, every life is precious. Unlike our enemy, we do not “love death.” Our respect for human life is another one of the human, inalienable rights that we defend as Americans. We respect and admire the sacrifices made by our law enforcement, our emergency rescue teams, our armed forces. We mourn every loss of life. We respect those who sacrifice their lives for our national cause.

Our brave men and women deserve the same type of courage that they give, and they deserve the same type of sacrifice that they make. This is why we must never tolerate a war without a strategic direction, without a defined enemy, and without a defined enemy ideology. Their sacrifices must never, never be made in vain. Those who have lost their lives and those who have dedicated their lives in such struggles must never be taken for granted. That would be inherently un-American.

The courage that we show in confronting this Islamic supremacist enemy is not only our personal sacrifice, it is also the courage of our convictions. It is our public demonstration and commitment to the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty. The world is watching America to see whether it truly believes in equality and liberty enough to confront the ideology of Islamic supremacism.

This campaign is notable principally because of the participants. The fact that one candidate is black and the other a woman overwhelms Old Media coverage, and so it is the responsibility of New Media to uncover the facts and provide analysis of the candidates’ policies.

What is clear is the lack of attention to foreign and defense policy this election cycle. We know McCain’s excellent record on these issues, but we do not know Obama’s. His campaign will only cast foreign and defense policy in a general light, as one would expect. In the past, the Old Media would have labored to tell us. Not so anymore. The cheerleaders for Obamessiah would not be caught dead investigating his policies. The American people suffer for their lack of professionalism.

Were he elected, Obama will face key foreign and defense policy challenges. How will he address the growth in Chinese military power? What are his policies on Taiwan? Will Obama protect Taiwan from Chinese coercion? Or will his election embolden the PRC’s leadership?

How will he respond to Russia’s increasing aggressiveness? What about the commitment to Europe? How will stop North Korean proliferation? Will the next president reverse the decline in America’s strategic forces?  This is only the beginning of the list of important policy decisions that will have to be made.

We know that each new president is tested by America’s foes. I feel comfortable with McCain’s ability to respond. I do not with Obama’s. Nor should other Americans. He has some excellent advisors, but the bench is not deep. If he is elected, it is certain that his inexperienced advisors will make many mistakes as they come up to speed and as reality forces them to abandon their policies.

In the meantime, America’s foes China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela will test the inexperienced president. It did not have to come to this. And may not, if Americans make the right choice on November 4^th.

Barack Obama selected Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate. So what does this mean?

It means that the Obama camp knows he is vulnerable on experience and gravitas. Biden certainly has experience and considerable knowledge of foreign and defense policy. But it is the wrong pick.

First, the very selection inevitably illuminates Obama’s inexperience and improvidence in most areas of domestic policy, not to mention foreign and defense policy. The choice does nothing to address one of the strongest arguments against Obama: The United States is at war and cannot afford the time to train Obama. Of course, were Obama elected, it is highly unlikely that Biden’s role in the administration would be significant.

Biden’s role will be closer to Mondale or Alvin Barkley than Cheney.

Second, it reveals the profound insecurity of the campaign because they know they are not ready to lead. They fear that the American people will realize this despite the attempts of ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and PBS, and Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post…well, it is easier to list the handful of media who do not support him rather than to recognize his legion of media supporters will guarantee the wind is always at Obama’s back. Even with enormous Old Media support, it is hard to fool the American people in a presidential campaign.

Obama’s argument that experience does not matter is belied by picking Biden. Hillary’s “3 a.m.” commercials really hit home, and with good reason. While he was appointed King in Europe, he was unable to translate those accolades into support in the States. His poor performance over the Georgian crisis, at Saddleback forum, and fall in the polls will not be reversed by this selection. The inexperience at the top cannot be erased.

All in all it was a disastrous pick.

So, cui bono? Who benefits. For the Democrats, clearly the pick helps Hillary. If Obama loses in November, as I believe he will, then Hillary is in place to pick up the pieces for 2012.

It also helps McCain, both tactically, Obama has made his choice so McCain may respond next week. But McCain also benefits strategically. Almost any of the Republican contenders will beat Joe Biden on domestic policy in the debate(s). And domestic policy is the traditional realm of VPs. Foreign and defense policy are well covered at the top by McCain.

Fundamentally, this pick also shows that the “Change” theme is rubbish. So much for the change that Obama promised. The more things change….

The Good. Much good has come out of this for the United States. There clearly is a winner in the conflict, and it is the United States. Poland has signed a missile accord with the United States. Ukraine has offered to create a joint missile defense network with NATO, and clearly its prospects for NATO membership have increased. It was a mistake not to admit Georgia to NATO as the Bush administration wanted at the Bucharest Summit in April 2008. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the French resisted, won the day. Now, four months later, the world has changed and the Germans and French have come around on this issue. Let’s hope that Georgia is admitted to NATO.

The Bad. Wars always inflict great suffering and this one is no exception. Their military has been defeated, although—importantly—not destroyed, and the objective of securing South Ossetia is dashed. No doubt, Georgia will be re-armed after the conflict subsides with even better conventional weaponry. For the population caught in the conflict, the suffering is far greater than in Kosovo in 1999 (anyone remember that war?). There are reports that the Russians are using Chechen mercenaries and troops serving in the notorious Vostok Battalion. One can only hope that when the dust settles Georgia’s new found friends in Berlin and Paris, and Washington, D.C., stay with Tbilisi.

And The Ugly. Russia is trying to re-assert its dominance in the Caucasus at the expense of the United States and NATO. Russian military performance has been awful according to the Russians themselves. They have criticized the air force’s performance, specifically the suppression of gun emplacements and other close air support missions. Other criticisms involve the lack of jointness which resulted in absence of coordination in the attack. This all the more surprising if, as some Russian military analysts think, that the invasion was planned months, or even as much as years ago, under the guise of the “Kavkazksiy Rubezh” exercises.

Meanwhile, the Russians are doing their best to begin Cold War Redux. The crude threat to arm its Baltic fleet with tactical nuclear weapons only serves to push Europeans into the arms of the United States. No doubt there will be further demands and threats from Moscow in the days and months ahead.

Stein’s key paragraphs:

As easy as it is to believe that the CIA, etc., blew another huge event, I find it impossible to accept that not one of the 127 Pentagon advisors in Georgia, including Special Forces and intelligence contractors, were clueless about Tblisi’s intent — and preparations — to move into South Ossetia.

That just doesn’t pass the laugh test. On July 15, for starters, amid rising tension between Moscow and Tblisi over South Ossetia, some 1,200 U.S. troops launched a three-week long joint military exercise with Georgian troops.

Three weeks later, on the night of Aug. 7, “coinciding with the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, Georgian President Saakashvili ordered an all-out military attack on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia.”

It is simply inconceivable that the Pentagon wasn’t wired to the helmets of Georgian troops, despite the denials of U.S. military officials.

A few days ago a Pentagon spokesman uttered a careful denial. (Note the qualifiers.)

“They are not involved in any way in this conflict between the Russian military and the Georgian military,” Lieutenant Colonel John Dorrian, a spokesman for the US European Command, told Agence France Press.

“We have upwards of 100 military trainers who are in Georgia now. We’ve been able to account for all of them,” he told AFP.

And they’ll stay there, according to the Pentagon, even with Russian tanks rolling deep into Georgia.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said there were no plans to redeploy the estimated 130 US troops and civilian contractors, who he said were stationed in the area around Tblisi.

The US Defense Department has been in contact with Georgian officials over the situation, but the Georgians have made no requests for assistance, Whitman said.

]]> http://wherelibertydwells.com/2008/08/12/us-intelligence-was-not-surprised-by-russian-invasion/feed/ 0