Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Although a favorite target of liberals is former President George W. Bush liberals have their own presidential problems. Now Bill Clinton has reentered the political discussion and if memory serves was given some sort of BS envoy job by Obama. Not less BS than the job given to the former First Lady HRC. Both of the Clinton’s have meaningless posts in the Obama Administration but apparently feel the need to ‘back’ the Messiah anyhow. And there’s Jimmy Carter who did no favors for the current Admin.

Yet the libs continue their worn out GOP bashing amid all the clamor their impotent party and fringe supporters create. Fringe components like nutroots, MoveOn and the Soros gang bashed Cheney, Rumsfeld, Patraeus and US troops with their antiwar sentiment leading up to the 2008 election. Obama began with campaign rhetoric convincing supporters the US would immediately withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan and punish everyone in the Bush Administration.

The fringe and not so fringe left want government everything from bailouts to stimulus to free healthcare as well as shamnesty for illegals, same sex marriage, abortion paid by tax dollars and more expense to the American public through AGW, cap and tax and a crushing debt exacerbated by President Obama and tax cheat Tim Geithner.

Congress is still muddled in Obamacare and cannot turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse. Okay, there’s not enough lipstick on the planet to accommodate this pig. Dems don’t appear to have the strength to finish Iraq or Afghanistan as required, fail to handle problems like Iran and North Korea properly and hand the Russians a gift by abandoning allies in Europe with an another appeasement missile defense plan.

As indicated by all the tax cheat nominations and withdrawals, plus the ACORN connection and shady resumes of most of the Messiah’s chosen few Michelle Malkin is not the least off the mark emphasizing the Culture of Corruption and placing it squarely on the liberal majority in Washington. The GOP had their fall from grace and lost the majority in the last two elections. It is now the Dems turn and they have wasted no time promoting a ‘throw the bums out’ option for voters in 2010.

Elections have consequences. Democrats wanted to be the majority and got their chance. Their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is once again being confirmed. It is way past time to point fingers and blame those who were previously the majority.

To the Democratic Party:

You wanted the job, you got it. Now govern properly and abandon your insane agenda or pay the price next year.

Complete the jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abandon your present course on healthcare. Reduce spending and increase tax cuts. Stop the bailouts and porkulus madness. Forget cap and tax. Give up shamnesty and improve national security and defense. Follow the rule of law and the founding documents. Correct the other items mentioned above.

Once you get that completed come back here for the next task list.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

This blogger regularly albeit infrequently promotes reading George F Will’s columns. That remains. Similar to a previous misunderstood column criticizing the way Americans present themselves Mr Will may or is again coming under fire to some degree. It is unpopular in conservative circles to suggest abandoning military combat operations before victory is secured. But George F Will does make a point, unpopular or not. And he may end up being right but not necessarily for the reasons given below.

Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck’s decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen’s, is squandered.

For several reasons this blog disagrees with the last two sentences presented above. You can of course make your own evaluation. Another opinion on this topic is at the WSJ.

The questions and concerns being raised are legitimate. Clearly, the mission has not been going well. Problems with our basic strategy, especially on the economic and development side, still need immediate attention. Moreover, our Afghan friends have a crucial role to play in both security and development, and if they fail to do so the overall warfighting and state-building effort will not succeed.

Both with Mr Will and the WSJ piece from a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (O’Hanlon), the downside is discussed. The WSJ piece includes the upside.

These problems need to be corrected soon. Even then, it will take at least 12-18 months to see results. Our chief challenge in Afghanistan is building state institutions and that is an inherently slow process. But as we debate new changes to our strategy this fall, we would do well to remember all that is working in our favor in this crucial effort.

Analyzing armed conflict while it is occurring and from an historical perspective is an unending endeavor. The only decisive outcome is whether those who risk making the ultimate sacrifice were at least allowed every conceivable opportunity for victory. After all, for the rest of us this analysis endeavor is merely Monday quarterbacking.

Perhaps the only statement on war with which we can all agree includes some expression of its futility. But this is what humans do when adequately provoked or someone decides all other options have evaporated. Until we morph into the perfect beings we sometimes think we are this practice will not become obsolete.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Plan for Guard Troops on Border Stalls Over Money
Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:40 PM

WASHINGTON — A government plan to use National Guard troops to help stem Mexican drug violence along the southern border is stymied by disagreements over who will pay for the soldiers and how they would be used.

Ordered by President Barack Obama in June to help secure the border with Mexico, the Pentagon and the Homeland Security Department drafted a $225 million plan to deploy temporarily 1,500 Guard troops to supplement Border Patrol agents.

The two agencies are wrangling over how to structure the deployment, but the primary sticking point is the money, according to senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

In days where economics and government spending feature the term ‘trillions’ to quantify dollars in the equation the Obamanation has the audacity to propose immigration reform as a major agenda item. If $225 million is a sticking point for a National Guard presence on the southern US border to protect against a criminal element in the drug trade how can one believe the liberal agenda on national defense and border security is anything more than a call for OPEN BORDERS on a permanent basis. Or at least until our nation collapses under the pressure of providing economic support for foreign nationals that their home country refuses to address?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Has the economic situation become so bleak in some people’s eyes or the state of Michigan that an interest in managing a prison hosting Gitmo detainees is seen as sensible? Desperate circumstances require desperate measures, maybe, but this smells like public prostitution with a government pimp. When you begin accepting ideas that would never have been considered in better economic times, red flags should be noticed not ignored.

If the state of Michigan sees Gitmo detainees as a key to their economic salvation the fall of the American auto industry has not been greatly exaggerated. And a question arises about Michigan’s commitment to save that industry. Democrats including Obama may have painted themselves into a corner with a deadline to close Gitmo. Republicans oppose Gitmo North but liberals are typically ready, willing and able to do whatever it takes to pursue their agenda even if that includes failure.

Members of Congress, voicing fears that the prisoners would endanger their constituents, blocked the use of money in the $106 billion war-funding bill from going toward the prison’s closure, and House members in their defense appropriation bill have included a ban on transferring the detainees to U.S. soil

Some of what Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) has to say on the issue may be a little peculiar but one sentence of his quotes from The Hill’s article makes the obvious point. “And the only reason [Democrats] want to do it is for a few dollars.”

Those supporting Gitmo North should snap out of it and seek therapy. It won’t help but it may keep them out of circulation and let the smart ones decide the issue. This may not simply be a Michigan concern. Neighboring states or the entire nation have reason to be troubled by any detainee containment in the US given the risks known and unknown that come with the problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from Maggie’s Notebook….

Michigan Kansas Terrorist Prison Courtroom: Jon Stewart Gitmo Video

Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas may be the home of a new experimental stateside “Gitmo.” The Standish Maximum Correctional Facility in Standish, Michigan may be the second such facility. See a hilarious (allbeit liberal) video below with Jon Stewart. 

Ordinary people who accomplished an extraordinary feat to save the world from tyranny.  The lessons taught by the actions of these remarkable individuals stand as testimony to what becomes necessary when the world ignores the threats to peace and liberty.  To honor their service and sacrifice let us not allow this to happen again. You can watch a short video by clicking on the picture above as well as explore other features which commemorate this day in history.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to analyze the issue of nukes, North Korea and their ability to deliver them or cause other world powers to look impotent. As is the case with most international conflict there is plenty of blame to go around. You can criticize the current and former US Presidential administrations for appearing inept or acting that way. But it is equally fair to distribute criticism to all concerned. That would be the handful of countries engaged or not at one time or another in direct talks with North Korea on the issue of nuclear intentions not so different from that of Iran. It also includes the do nothing approach of the United Nations and members all.

Along with more than several countries in Africa, Iran, North Korea and examples from nearly every continent have presented problems international in scope that major powers and the UN have dropped the ball on numerous times. And then a couple of news reports of the last couple of days emphasize the fiasco that is the response to North Korean nukes.

The United States stressed its resolve to defend allies Japan and South Korea Wednesday, as it dismissed North Korea’s latest threats as “saber rattling” and “bluster.”

That is part of a report from the 27th you can read by clicking on the linked text. But the quoted dismissal of saber rattling and bluster is contradicted by the following story from the 28th.

South Korea and the United States have raised their defense alert levels on the Korean peninsula, a day after the North said it was willing to discard the 56-year old armistice that paused the Korean War. Analysts expect more tension in the days ahead.

This is a perfectly fine example of what is wrong with the relationships and operating performance among friendly and not so friendly countries around this frail planet. From time to time when some of the world’s children continuously demonstrate an inability to play well with others (even given the sad state of affairs in world politics) the rest of the children should be able to agree on an effective remedy to the situation.

When the safety of all concerned can be threatened by a few how much intelligence does it require to negotiate an arrangement that will end the stupidity? The tired old excuses that these matters are more complex than the ordinary citizen understands simply don’t hold water. If it is a matter of waiting to see who blinks first let this ordinary citizen be the first to inform you, that already happened. Now get on with it and solve the problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The first story is a bit of a surprise. The second, another in a series of stories on Dick Cheney is not. And the third, on Gitmo and the detainees continues. President Obama also suggests ‘loose nuclear materials’ will be secured in four years. Funny how US Presidents always seem to provide time lines that coincide with the election cycle for the term of the office they hold. Doesn’t do much for the public confidence factor. Is Obama’s stance on Gitmo based on a reasonable approach, his own personal opinion or the concern that not closing the facility will break one more campaign promise to his followers?

The bomb plot story has a time line indicating it is a legacy operation from the Bush Administration. You remember him. The President many love to bash yet are willing to forget he kept the US safe since 9/11 along with the man in the second story listed here by the name of Dick Cheney. BTW, another story indicates Cheney’s popularity in the polls has risen since his return to public discourse on the topic of terrorism. And another story suggests ‘the muscle’ for the GOP resides in Cheney, Limbaugh and Gingrich. Another ‘funny’ item in the sense of interesting or unusual is that President Obama mentions in the third story presented here that his number one job is to keep America safe.

A familiar pattern seems to be emerging here. Other reports suggest Obama cannot distance himself from items associated with the previous administration no matter how hard he may try. He has at least altered action of promises made to his legions of followers and been criticized by them for not being to the left enough. His actions would indicate he agrees there is some wisdom in what Bush and Cheney accomplished yet he cannot bring himself to say it. But his actions reflect that at times. And yet the left side of politics continues to bash the past and criticize the present. While the rest of us realize things weren’t so bad during the Bush years. Sure, there were reasons to be concerned. One example would be Bush pushing the shamnesty immigration policy that was soundly defeated by public outrage. The fall from grace on fiscal discipline is another. But the number one job as described by Obama in the third story here was a complete success.

Those who support keeping Gitmo open and handling the detainee question as in the Bush years express the notion that it has worked. Those who oppose it suggest their is something wrong, immoral or impractical about it. Try this parallel. The use of self-defense in protecting one’s life and the lives of others. No reasonable person wishes to kill another. But sometimes it is necessary. Consider you have a weapon in your possession. An armed intruder violates the sanctity of your home and the scenario places you face to face with the threat. As the intruder raises his weapon toward you there are two choices. It might be nice to talk it over and find a mutually agreeable resolution to this conflict. But most reasonable people would understand the intruder already made his decision which leaves you with one choice. It is unfortunate. But not unlike the Gitmo and other terrorism questions choosing the ‘nice’ choice may end your life or the lives of others.

Try stirring that ingredient into your humble pie.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Four men arrested in an alleged plot to blow up a synagogue, a Jewish community center, and U.S. warplanes are expected to appear in federal court Thursday in White Plains, New York.

Federal prosecutors say New York City authorities arrested the men Wednesday, following a year-long undercover operation. In a statement Wednesday, prosecutors say the suspects tried to buy plastic explosives from an undercover FBI informant to use in an attack on a New York synagogue.

They are also accused of trying to obtain surface-to-air missiles to attack military planes at an Air National Guard Base near New York City.

Federal prosecutors say the four men have been charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. They have also been charged with conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles.

Officials say three of the defendants are U.S. citizens and one is of Haitian descent.

Authorities say one suspect, James Cromitie, told an informant that his parents once lived in Afghanistan and that he was angry about the killings of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. military forces.

The other three suspects are David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen.

A local newspaper, the Times Herald-Record, says an area mosque leader has described one of the men, 21-year-old Payen, as a “strange kid” with “a lot of psychological problems.” The newspaper quotes mosque leader Hamin Rashada as saying Payen would occasionally attend services and that his statements on Islam often had to be corrected.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has defended the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation methods, saying they were necessary to get information from terrorists and save American lives.

In a speech Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Cheney said President Barack Obama and other officials have largely “mischaracterized” the previous administration’s approval of such techniques.

He said they were “essential,” “justified,” “successful,” and the “right thing to do” and that they prevented the violent deaths of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of people.

The former vice president, who played a major role in crafting U.S. anti-terrorist policies under George W. Bush, said the methods were always given legal review before approved and that torture was never permitted.

President Obama says the Bush-approved simulated drowning technique known as water-boarding was torture and vows to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Cheney has sharply criticized Mr. Obama’s national security policies, saying he is making the United States more vulnerable to terror attacks.

Former Vice President Cheney has said he has made a request to declassify two CIA memos that he says outlines, in detail, the successes that came from using harsh techniques during interrogation of terror suspects.

Al-Qaida actively planning to attack US

U.S. President Barack Obama says al-Qaida is actively planning to attack the United States again.

In a speech in Washington Thursday, Mr Obama said these are “extraordinary times” for the country, fighting two wars and facing a range of challenges. He said his single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe.

The president said the U.S. must use all its elements of power to defeat the threat posed by al-Qaida terrorists, and he added that steps have already been taken to ensure the country is secure.

Addressing an audience of senior Cabinet officials and members of Congress, Mr. Obama said these steps include providing the necessary resources to fight the extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, and investing in military and intelligence capabilities. He also said his administration has “re-energized” a global effort to curb proliferation of nuclear weapons - in the president’s words, “to deny the world’s most dangerous people access to the world’s deadliest weapons.”

Mr. Obama said all “loose” nuclear materials in the world should be secure within four years.

He said the United States is better protecting its borders and increasing its preparedness for any future attacks or natural disasters. The United States is building new partnerships around the world, the president said, “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates.”

Mr. Obama said the United States has renewed American diplomacy, so that the U.S. once again has the “strength and standing to truly lead the world.”

Obama defends decision to close Guantanamo prison

President Obama has defended his decision to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the facility set back the moral authority of the United States.

Although hundreds of people have been detained at Guantanamo during the past seven years, Mr. Obama said, the military commissions set up to try those detainees have handled only three cases.

Continued operation of the prison at Guantanamo has “weakened” U.S. national security, according to Mr. Obama, who announced his intention to transfer some of those held in Cuba to so-called “supermax” prisons - ultra-secure detention facilities - in the United States.

The president’s plan to close Guantanamo by January of next year has attracted widespread criticism in the United States from those who oppose the transfer of dangerous suspects to U.S. states.

Mr. Obama pledged that his administration will not release anyone who would endanger U.S. national security or the American people.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has sharply criticized Mr. Obama’s policies on Guantanamo and other issues, also is speaking out on national-security issues Thursday.

Mr. Obama says the Guantanamo detention camp has been an obstacle to getting allies to cooperate with the United States in fighting worldwide extremism.

He described the prison as a “mess” and said it was a “misguided experiment” begun by the administration of former President George W. Bush.

Mr. Obama said all pending cases at Guantanamo will be reviewed.

US Must Not Abandon Principles

President Obama has said that after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States entered a new era, in which enemies did not abide by any laws of war and presented new challenges to the application of U.S. law.

Mr. Obama said the government needs new tools to protect the American people, prevent terrorist attacks and prosecute those who carry them out.

He said that faced with an uncertain threat to the United States after the September 11 attacks, the government made a series of hasty decisions in an effort to protect Americans, and did so based on fear rather than foresight.

He said the U.S. cannot afford to set aside its principles, something he accused both Democrats and Republicans of doing.

President Obama called on both parties to take a new approach, rejecting torture and recognizing the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

The president said the United States needs to update its institutions to deal with the threat of extremism, but must do so within the the rule of law and with due process, checks and balances and accountability.

President Obama said the legal approach for fighting terrorism over the last eight years was neither effective nor sustainable, and failed to adhere to America’s values.

Mr. Obama said that is why he chose to ban so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, such as water-boarding. He said he rejects the assertion that such methods are the most effective means of interrogation.

He said they undermine the law, alienate the U.S. internationally, and increase the enemies’ will to fight.

Some detainees to be tried in US federal courts

President Obama says whenever feasible, detainees at Guantanamo who have violated American criminal laws will be tried in American federal courts.

Mr. Obama noted that terrorists including Zaccarias Moussaoui, identified as the 20th hijacker in the September 11 attacks, was convicted in a U.S. court and is serving a life prison sentence.

He said detainees who violate the laws of war will be tried through military commissions, saying such panels have a history in the United States dating back to the first U.S. president and the Revolutionary War.

The president said his administration is bring the commissions in line with the rule of law, instead of using what he called the same “flawed” commissions of the last seven years.

Many challenges remain before closure of prison

President Obama says there are detainees at Guantanamo who in effect “remain at war” with the United States.

He acknowledged challenges in closing the facility, and said his goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees.

He said the toughest decision on the closure is what to do with detainees who cannot be prosecuted but yet pose what he called a “clear danger” to the American people.

The president said if the U.S. determines it must hold someone indefinitely to prevent a terror attack, then it must be done with a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight.

Review of state secret doctrine nears completion

President Obama says his administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of the state secret doctrine.

Mr. Obama noted the doctrine has been used for many decades by presidents to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. He said the practice is “absolutely necessary” to protect national security, but he is concerned that it has been overused.

He said governments must not protect information merely because it reveals violations of the law or embarrasses the government.

Sometimes it is good to delay publishing one’s opinion on a topic even when the facts are right there in front of you and your frustration level could use the release of expressing the obvious about someone who has been entrusted with leading your nation, that you love and is entirely wrong. It is only good when someone with a great deal more credibility does it for you. And that expression includes the credibility of many more who feel the same way. The excerpt below explains it.

The Interrogation Memorandums
By Gary Berntsen
April 22, 2009

President Obama’s release of these memos took place despite substantial protest. The four most recent CIA Directors-John Deutch, George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden-all recommended against the release of these memorandums. President Obama’s own newly appointed Director of CIA, Leon Panetta, also recommended against releasing the documents. Yet President Obama, in a seemingly relentless effort to discredit his predecessor, George W. Bush, made the memorandum available to the public anyway.

As with other references presented on this blog it adds to the growing criticism of a new President and dispels much of the inflamed rhetoric employed by the far left strictly for political purposes. While some on the left may express genuine concern and honest, although misinformed, opinions on critical issues or even which issues are critical the dominant theme especially with regard to national security dooms us to repeat history if we follow suggestions to ignore it.

Which brings us back to the beginning. President Obama like many others in the past expressed an interest in being surrounded by smart people who disagree with him to give him advice. Based on his recent choice for CIA chief who advised him not to disclose the memos it is obvious again Mr Obama had no intention of listening to those who present arguments contrary to his own. Just like calling the GOP the party of ‘no’ and doing your best to shut them out since you have a political majority in Congress.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

There is a report stating Pew Research has another poll out indicating Barack Obama is the most polarizing President in four decades. Is that really such a surprise? About as surprising as another report of their’s featured on this blog indicating illegal immigrants are having more children. But in terms of the current status on the issue of torture or no torture, prosecute or no prosecute, politicize or not, Mr Obama’s only transparency to date is handling this matter. He indicates he does not want the ‘torture memos’ politicized yet the sequence below suggests just the opposite. Other reports suggest Mr Obama is succumbing to pressure from the left to pursue legal action against justice dept and intelligence agency personnel as political retribution. This blog is of the opinion Mr Obama requires no pressure to do exactly that but is seeking political cover by saying one thing and leaving the door open for his AG to do his bidding and take the political heat.

April 16 report below indicates Obama will not seek retribution.

CIA Off The Hook For Past Waterboarding
Obama Won’t Prosecute CIA Officials Who Used Harsh Interrogation Techniques During Bush Administration
WASHINGTON, April 16, 2009
(CBS/AP) Seeking to move beyond what he calls a “a dark and painful chapter in our history,” President Barack Obama said Thursday that CIA officials who used harsh interrogation tactics during the Bush administration will not be prosecuted.

April 20 report suggests no one will be prosecuted over torture memos.

Aide: Obama Won’t Prosecute Bush Officials
Masterminds, Not Just Underlings, Will Be Immune From Justice For Illegal Torture Policies
WASHINGTON, April 20, 2009

(AP) President Barack Obama does not intend to prosecute Bush administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday.

Then the story is nearly reversed and later Obama says it is up to AG Eric Holder.

April 22, 2009
Barack Obama hints that George Bush ‘torture lawyers’ may be prosecuted
President Obama acknowledged yesterday that lawyers from the Bush Administration who drafted memos authorizing the use of harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects could potentially face prosecution.

Although he once again stressed that it would be inappropriate to take action against CIA personnel — provided they had followed guidance issued by the White House — Mr Obama added that those responsible for writing the rules could yet be pursued through the courts.

There ya go Barry. Nothing is better in the world since you became President. Yes, we know, you’ve only been there a little while. As leaders of the rest of the world are ecstatic about how easy it will be to manipulate the US President, Barack Obama in one week alienates both the CIA and the Justice Department and probably many others in national security related areas including the DoD and FBI. Maybe the NSA is exempt.

Point is, things are not going well whether you’re a conservative or a liberal. And there is not much talk about little details Obama mentioned during all this torture talk. If much of the details were already out in public how come heads aren’t rolling for that? There was a time when leaking sensitive government information (politically correct word) was a serious offense. But then, politicizing the ‘torture memo’ story like Obama said he would not allows one to choose which laws will be applied and which will not.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

First the caveats to this post. In this story title use of the word ‘immigrants’ can be defined as its most traditional use. Someone who comes to a country from another through a legal process. According to the report the immigrants described are ‘required to have at least two years of legal US residency.’ That of course is a good thing provided the determination of legal residency is accurate.

The story may raise memory of terms like ‘outsourcing’ or moving American jobs ‘offshore’ or phrases like ‘jobs Americans won’t do.’ It has been known for some time that not only the military but intelligence agencies and other government entities were limited in their ability to communicate in languages other than English or have people who can operate within foreign cultures like ‘native’ citizens.

And since the date of this report this particular military recruitment program started in February of this year and will end in December with 52 recruits to date the term pilot program appears genuine.

This story can raise all sorts of questions without any of them generating harsh criticism. What does this say about past and present needs of the military in defending the nation and national interests? Is this an exploitation or simple case of filling a need based on another’s need? Does it broadcast limitations or shortcomings in our educational system or culture? The list of questions can go on indefinitely. Including the question of mandatory service and considering larger skill sets from current and future generations of Americans. One final question can ask if this pilot program opens the door to future risk or problems by others’ misuse of what appears an innocent matching of need?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

New Army recruits

The U.S. Army is stepping up efforts to recruit more skilled soldiers by offering immigrants a fast track to U.S. citizenship if they enlist.

The move comes as the Pentagon prepares to send several thousand more troops to Afghanistan and with the war in Iraq in its sixth year.

The U.S. Army chief of staff, himself, swears in this group of recruits at a ceremony in New York. Half of these 32 new Army recruits are immigrants from countries such as Pakistan, India, South Korea and Bangladesh.

General George Casey welcomes the new soldiers, recruited under a new initiative called MAVNI - Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest. It’s a pilot program that promotes enlistment as a short-cut to U.S. citizenship. Recruits are required to have at least two years of legal U.S. residency.

Lieutenant Colonel Margaret Stock says the Army is looking for people with language skills or medical expertise. “We’re also looking for people who have cultural ability. They understand certain cultures that we are dealing with. We found, in our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, that having people who were culturally knowledgeable is critical to success on the battlefield,” Stock said.

So far, the MAVNI program, which began in February, has enlisted 52 new soldiers, 60 percent of whom are college graduates. The Army wants people who speak one of 35 languages it deems “strategic.”

Stephen Chi speaks Cantonese and four other languages. He will be working as a “petroleum supply specialist.” He says he enlisted, not for the U.S. passport, but for the camaraderie. “I grew up in Norway, my parents are Chinese, so joining the Army will give me a chance to really belong to somewhere,” he said.

Twenty-four-year-old Toniya Mishra, who will start as a “water treatment specialist.” She says the Army approached her after finding her resume on the Internet. While her starting salary is less than she hoped to get with a masters’ degree, she says there are other perks. “They provide insurance for your family, and you get to travel a lot in different countries, and it’s better than doing anything else in a market like this today,” she said.

For the recruits, the next stop is basic training, a rigorous nine weeks of physical fitness, discipline and training.

And some then will go to Iraq or Afghanistan, where they could face the dangers of combat.

Melpati Krishna - a medical doctor from India - has some concerns. “My only fear,” Krishna says, “is like, getting through the basic training.”

So far, 380 people have applied. The Army says it will accept up to 1,000 before the program expires in December.

As they say, this just in (at time of posting) …..

MOMBASA, Kenya (CNN) — Pirates hijacked a 35,000-ton Greek-owned bulk carrier in the Gulf of Aden on Tuesday, the European Union’s Maritime Security Center said.

The crew was thought to be unhurt and ships have been warned to stay clear of the area for fear of further attack, the security center said.

The hijacking follows the killing by U.S. Navy SEALs of three pirates who were holding an American ship captain hostage.

How about this for a suggestion to President Obama since it is clear the terrorists in Somalia are slow learners? Since the so-called ‘pirates’, nothing more than terrorists or extortionists, have puffed up their chests after being thwarted by Navy Seal precision Obama could raise the ante and do something effective.

Have some good old-fashioned US military air power within striking distance of the shipping lanes. If a ship with US personnel on board signals they are under threat from another vessel dispatch American air power to make a pass with a few well placed warning shots. If the offending vessel does not retreat, blow it out of the water on the next pass, end of story.

How long do you suppose it would take the so-called pirates to understand their strategy has become too costly? A side benefit might be other nations would take the same stance. To do less will only encourage the perps to continue.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It is probably too early to draw a conclusion on President Obama’s reported ‘go ahead’ order on the Navy Seals mission to end the hostage situation involving Somali ‘pirates’ (thugs, terrorists, extortionists) and a now famous Captain Phillips of the ship Maersk Alabama. With one 16 year old perp in custody and Phillips still being held hostage, under imminent threat of death, the Navy team took out the remaining three thugs effectively freeing the captain from his captors.

If reports are accurate and President Obama twice gave the order to proceed then he should receive credit for doing the right thing. But that is what he is supposed to do, the right thing. While doing the right thing is subject to debate even in this case the outcome could have been a problem. What if the plan went forward and disaster was the result? That is the difficulty in doing the right thing under these circumstances. There would have been no shortage of criticism. So it was not an easy call contrary to what popular opinion might be but it was the right thing to do. And on that note this blog offers its first positive response to the new President.

Be it known that it is for this event and this event only that the positive response is offered. For between the Presidential agenda and the main stream media, what of it still remains viable, the phony treatment of current events distort reality. A report from AP this weekend emphasizes this assertion.

Obama Hopes to Use Dealmaking Skills Honed Abroad
Sunday, April 12, 2009 8:33 AM
WASHINGTON –

Let’s make a deal.

President Barack Obama honed his dealmaking skills on his maiden international trip, to Europe and the Middle East.

The trip helped burnish his image abroad. But can he translate that into getting his legislative priorities through Congress, where partisan lines continue to harden?

Analysts say the generally positive reception to his first venture on the international stage can’t hurt. But foreign-policy successes don’t necessarily mean achievements at home.

What analysts say any of that? Where are they? Why does the AP report not refer to them by name and offer supporting resources or evidence? Could it be the author is making it up? Like Obama suggested of those who presented less than flattering information on him during the 2008 campaign. ‘They’re just making it up.’

Analysts say. Sources say. Unnamed sources say. High level sources close to the President say. Under the promise of anonymity so and so said. This is not convincing. Right out of the gate on this one the AP is helping support the notion that the MSM is a fraud.

In the very next paragraph after such a pathetic beginning with the AP report the following was concluded. Obama helped negotiate a compromise among world powers to battle the global recession, helped break a deadlock over NATO’s next secretary-general and helped coordinate NATO’s strategy for Afghanistan. Where do they get this stuff? The G20 was a flop. Go read the statements of Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown and others at the G20. You will, if you haven’t already, see a different outcome from this particular international political show. Economic pledges of a trillion dollars do not a success make. No ‘fighting’ troops to Afghanistan from the EU is not an accomplishment. There is nothing about the G20, the UN, NATO or Obama that suggest the glowing report offered by the AP.

He agreed to restart languishing nuclear arms control talks with Russia, laid down a marker on terms for a Palestinian state, delivered a strong pitch for allowing Turkey to join the European Union and sought to heal a rift between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

Appeasement, surrender, appeasement, appeasement in that order on the last misguided excerpt from the report by AP. For a more realistic view on the nonsense that is President Obama’s agenda and his crews’ efforts thus far is another promotion from this blog to read yet another piece from George Will.

Rice really thinks there is a community out there. To believe that is to believe, as liberals do, that harmony is humanity’s natural condition, so discord is a remediable defect in arrangements.

Regarding North Korea’s missile launch, Rice was very stern. She said the U.N. Security Council would “meet,” and there would be “consultation with our partners,” who “all need to come together” and “add to” the 2006 U.N. resolution that North Korea had just disregarded, the one that demanded a halt to future missile-related activity, including launches. The Security Council met. It could not even bring itself to say North Korea’s launch had violated the resolution against launches.

The column by Will must be read in its entirety as the lone excerpt provided here doe not do it justice. Plus it is good to refer to other sources from this blog that have, shall we say, ’street cred’ in making the case or point suggested here. With more talent like George Will in the MSM they might have a better chance for survival as well as being taken seriously.

It would be wonderful if this blog could expand this one time positive response to the President’s action on the Phillips’ rescue to his entire agenda. But there is currently no evidence the remainder of his plans will be an exercise in doing the right thing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

By Michael Bowman
Washington D.C.
13 April 2009

The U.S. Navy says fear that an American cargo ship captain’s life was in imminent danger prompted U.S. gunfire that killed three Somali pirates and secured the captain’s freedom after five harrowing days in captivity.

Late Sunday came word that Captain Richard Phillips, who offered himself as a hostage to secure the freedom of his crew aboard the Maersk Alabama, was unharmed aboard a U.S. Navy vessel.

Vice Admiral William Gortney of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet says elite special forces aboard the USS Bainbridge took action on orders from President Barack Obama to use deadly force, if Phillip’s life was at stake.

“The pirates were armed with AK-47s and small-caliber pistols.  And they were pointing the AK-47s at the captain.  It got heated, and the on-scene commander interpreted hostile intent by the pirates and took the appropriate action,” said Admiral Gortney.

The admiral says the pirates had been demanding a substantial ransom and repeatedly threatened to kill Phillips.  Phillips and the pirates were aboard a lifeboat from the Alabama that had run out of fuel. A fourth pirate was on the Bainbridge at the time the stand-off ended.

Gortney said, “The one pirate who surrendered early today is being treated humanely.  His counterparts [other pirates] who chose to continue to fight paid with their lives.  And the [U.S.] Department of Justice is working out the details with the intent of holding him [i.e., the 4th pirate] accountable for his actions.”

Gortney described Phillips and his crew as “heroic”. But the head of Maersk Line, John Reinhart, who spoke with Phillips by telephone after the ordeal had ended, said the captain insisted the real heroes were the U.S. service members who “brought me home.”

Phillips had tried to escape on his own, but the Somali pirates recaptured him.

At Captain Phillips’ home in Vermont, there was jubilation.  Family friend Alison McColl spoke to reporters. “This is truly a very happy Easter for the Philips family.”

Phillips was the first American to be taken by pirates who have plagued the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean shipping lanes for years.  Hundreds of other hostages of various nationalities are being held hostage by pirates.

The U.S. Navy’s rescue of Phillips was the second time that Somali pirates have faced deadly military force this month.  Last week, French forces killed two pirates and captured three others to end a hostage stand-off aboard a French yacht.

Commenting on the Phillips rescue, a self-proclaimed Somali pirate told the Associated Press that he and his fellow marauders have learned a lesson and that they will kill future hostages.

By Paula Wolfson
Washington
12 April 2009

An American cargo ship captain who had been held hostage by pirates in a lifeboat off the coast of Somalia is once again a free man. The incident brought the piracy threat to the fore for the Obama administration and the U.S. Congress.

Word from the Somali coast is that Captain Richard Phillips is free and safe.

News reports from the region quote unidentified U.S. military and intelligence officials as saying the cargo ship captain was freed Sunday and in now in American hands. Initial news reports say three of the pirates were killed and one was captured.

Phillips was the first American taken hostage by Somali pirates who have operated in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean shipping lanes for years.

His ship, the U.S. flagged Maersk Alabama, was attacked by pirates last Wednesday. Members of his crew said Phillips volunteered to become a hostage in exchange for their safety.

American military helicopters and warships kept close watch on the hostage situation, waiting for an opportunity. Reports from the scene say members of an elite Navy unit moved in Sunday and staged a successful rescue.

While United States Navy was responsible for the military operation, the U.S. Coast Guard coordinated with the company that owns the Maersk Alabama.

During an appearance on the CBS program Face the Nation, the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, Thad Allen, was asked if more can be done to protect cargo ships from the pirate threat.

“For the past several years the United Kingdom has led a regional consortium where they pass information on sightings, best routings and so forth,” said Allen. “We are in the process of helping create a code of conduct for merchant ships so they can minimize the threats.”

There has been discussion of arming these cargo ships. Allen said that would create new problems in terms of training and certification. He said what is needed is an international legal framework to go after these pirates and bring them to justice.

“What you really have to have is a coordinating mechanism that brings these pirates to court where they can be held accountable,” added Allen.

Earlier, on the Fox News Sunday program, two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee talked about the various options before the Obama administration to deal with the piracy threat.

Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said more military resources are needed. But he stressed it must be a true international effort.

“It can’t just be us,” he said. “It has got to be everybody because everybody is affected by it.”

Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh agreed the world must take a strong stand.

“I think a tough approach is in order here,” added Bayh. “Thomas Jefferson in dealing with the Barbary pirates of his day said “millions for defense, not one dime for tribute.”

Bayh said it is essential to create some sort of effective government amidst the chaos in Somalia.

“No. I am talking about helping responsible elements - and they are hard to find within Somalia - eventually have a government there that is capable of controlling its own territory so we don’t have to,” said Bayh.

Speaking just hours before the rescue mission became known, Bayh made remarks that now seem prophetic. He said the United States should send a clear signal that anyone who attacks a U.S. flagged ship and takes Americans hostage will face “some real problems”.

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

This month President Barack Obama caused the eyes of many to glaze over with his wandering message expressing an interest in a world free of nuclear weapons. Those who applauded the announcement were from one of three groups. Those who share membership in the not so exclusive nuclear club of planet Earth or wannabees who are delighted the new American President will try to disarm the US. Or uber liberals with reality issues who still believe surrender and appeasement will bring peace to the world. Or really nice folks who thought it impolite not to applaud the person on stage accepting blame for everything on behalf of the country he represents.

Yo Barry. Here’s a heads up for you. Most people accept the events in history that led to the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China and France being the original, and for a time only, members of the group known as the Nuclear Club. Well, except maybe for France, but that’s another story. They’re the same ones who support the US strategy in Afghanistan but won’t send troops or ones that can fight. Oh ya, and they’re the ones like some others in the EU who support the G20 idea of providing a trillion in stimulus but are fine with the US contributing more than their share. And apparently, Mr Obama, you agree.

In addition to the original members of the Nuclear Club are India and Pakistan. Just like Iran and North Korea now, no one had a clue how to prevent these two countries from joining. And there are about a dozen other countries included in discussions of who has the ability to go nuclear. (Israel’s ability is assumed but not declared ) So the number is at or approaching a couple of dozen. Are you following this so far, Mr President?

If you understand the previous few paragraphs then why the hell are you making these public statements about a nuclear free world? This is one time most Americans would hope you are offering another promise you will break. Otherwise one can only assume the pressure is getting to you and you’re losing it. If the problem was so simple to solve and all the people of the planet could get along as you and your followers believe, don’t you expect it would have been achieved by now? Has it ever occurred to you that the reason the problem has not been corrected is that no one has the answer yet? It is fair to assume that what was once feared as the ultimate fate of a nuclear armed Earth still remains.

But a likely alternative expectation, given the UN’s typical failure to respond to the DPRK’s missile launch, is that with proper handling avoiding catastrophe can be achieved in much the same way as it was in the past. All parties will be attracted to their nuclear power of choice while the nuke powers will maintain a balance still based on mutual assured destruction if the worst would happen. At some point thereafter this game will be exhausted and other circumstances yet to arrive will cause nations of the world to abandon this stupidity. Not because we will then be wiser but some other equally scary threat will require extraordinary cooperation between all the people on this planet in order to survive. And no, Mr Gore, it’s not Global Scamming Warming. It’s those peaceful Muslims carrying suitcases. (hint, hint)

We may then have a taste of peace long enough to become addicted to its benefits. But it won’t happen due to some idealistic fantasy that we can all get along because that is the way ti is supposed to be. That may come within time but for now you are trying to put the cart before the horse at best or transforming the human race to an endangered species at worst. Starting with the United States for whom you took an oath. It may be time for you to read it again for the first time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com