Monday, November 24, 2014

Hagel resignation yet another policy slap in the face as Obama tries to save face.





Chuck Hagel has become the third Secretary of Defense during Obama's presidency to quit. And the political spin machine inside a White House that has lied about so much, most notably about healthcare,  in trying to save Obama's face,  put out from the shadows and not for attribution, the  preposterous story that Hagel was forced out. 

Just about everyone knows that Hagel quit because he, like former  Defense Secretaries  Gates and Panetta before him and like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were fed up with Obama's incompetence and lack of leadership in dealing with Syria, Isis ( whom Obama had scoffed at a year ago by calling them "the junior varsity"), Ukraine in selling out their sovereignty because he couldn't stand up to Putin and allowing Crimea to be annexed, and Assad with his phony red line over chemical weapons not to mention the going nowhere nuclear talks with Iran which has passed the predetermined deadline with no agreement and are now trying to be extended.


No one with two functioning brain cells (which seems to eliminate everyone at CNN who, like trained seals swallows the fish thrown at them by the White House - not just this White House, any White House - and just reports it)  believes that Hagel wasn't leaving because he had reached the end of his rope with Obama, his inability to formulate or approve a strategy on anything, and his failed way of doing things. That became obvious when a few weeks ago, memos Hagel had written to the White House which were blunt and said as much, criticizing Obama for his lack of a coherent policy and strategy became public. These things never become public by accident. And they laid the groundwork for Hagel quitting.

Hagel follows in the footsteps of Robert Gates, and Leon Panetta as Obama's third secretary of defense who has resigned because they clearly had enough and wanted no more  of the incompetence in the White House or to carry out Obama policies or non policies which they had no confidence in and which  in the past resulted in predictable failure.

 Hillary Clinton did the same after 4 years as Secretary of State, tired of Obama's foreign policy bungling and his refusal to take the recommendations of people far smarter than he is.

It was three years ago when both Clinton and Panetta recommended that the U.S. arm the moderate Syrian rebels both in their fight against Assad but also because of what they warned would be the rise of Isis. Obama dismissed their concerns and their recommendation and joked about Isis as being "the junior varsity".

Everyone who works for any president whether Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State or any cabinet official,  does so at the president's pleasure and has only one job function -- to carry out and execute the policies of the president. When you can no longer in good conscience do that, you resign.  Which is why Clinton, Gates, Panetta and now Hagel have all left.

If you don't believe in the policies, or  worse, if you are convinced they will fail and the president even after his own repeated failures refuses to take your recommendations, then quitting is the only honorable thing to do.

And that's  what Hagel did. And to try to avoid another embarrassment and save face, Obama had his cronies in the White House put out the story attributed to "sources" , that it was Obama who forced Hagel out and not the other way around. Which  is like the loser boyfriend claiming he  broke off  the relationship, not her.When everyone knows she was the one who packed her bags and said good riddance. Which shows that Obama, even now,  is still more concerned about saving his face than the things that are really worth saving. 

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Palestinians commemorating Arafat's death is the same as celebrating not having a state.






If there was any evidence to support the irrationality of Palestinians throughout 60+ years of futility in making demands they cannot get, have no right to,  and have no means to enforce while refusing to accept anything less than those demands in creation of a Palestinian state, (which is why the only state they have is the state they are in) its the recent commemoration of the death of Yasser Arrafat, father of Palestinian terrorism and maybe the single biggest reason Palestinians have no state.


Commemorating the death of Yassar Arafat as a hero is the same as Palestininans commemorating and celebrating that they have no state.


In 2000, in a last ditch attempt to forge an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians to create a Palestinian state before the end of his term, president Bill Clinton and his envoy Dennis Ross twisted the arm of prime minister Ehud Barak and convinced him to destroy his political career and become a willing target of contempt by many Israeli citizens, by agreeing to compromises with the Palestinians in a peace agreement to create a Palestinians state and make concessions that no prime minister before or since had been willing to make. This included the all important and most contentious issue of Barak agreeing to partition part of East Jerusalem as the capitol for a Palestinian state.


Clinton convinced Barak that for the sake  of peace, and to make an agreement that years from now Israelis and Palestinians alike would praise him for, if not at the moment, to accept Clinton's proposals.  He did. Arafat didn't.


When these unprecedented concessions were presented to Arafat he rejected all of them. Instead of accepting them and creating the longed for Palestinian state, Arafat not only rejected them including the partioning of East Jerusalem as the capitol of a Palestinian state because he wanted all of it, he launched the Infitada, a sustained terrorist attack against Israel that killed hundreds on both sides and lasted years. 


Had Arafat accepted the best deal the Palestinians will probably ever see, they would be in the 14th year of their own Palestinian state with part of East Jerusalem as their capitol. Instead they have what they have always had for decades, wars, many of which were started by Hamas in Gaza, the closing of borders in response to waves of Palestinians suicide attacks which in the end  strangled the Palestinian economy since 40% of Palestinians had jobs in Israel they could no longer go to, and thousands of Palestinians  killed in wars started by Arafat and Hamas which also destroyed billions of dollars worth of infrastructure.

The one thing Abbas and the Palestinians ignore in their commemoration of Arafat's death, is that it was widely reported that on his death bed Arafat admitted that he made a mistake by not accepting the Clinton deal in 2000. 

Which for Palestinians who want their own state,  has to make some people wonder what it is they are commemorating. And whether that commemoration of a policy and decision that  hurt the Palestinians and kept them from having their own state means a continuation of all the things Palestinians and their leaders have done and will do that will keep them from having that state .

It will be up to them and their leaders to decide which Arafat they want to commemorate; the one who rejected the 2000 peace deal and instead launched the Infitdada that left them with the consequences they have now or the one who later admitted he  made a mistake.

NOTE: The Palestinian terrorist ax attack that killed four rabbis and a policeman in a synagogue on Nov.18 can be directly traced to their celebration of Arafat, the worlds leading terrorist when he was alive, by Abbas and the Palestinians. It is the same as celebrating the Infitada which at the time  guaranteed the Palestinians  they would have no state any time in the near future.  And they haven't. 

The Palestinians who carried out the attack and the thousands of Palestinians of all ages dancing in the streets, handing out candy, carrying axes in solidarity,  celebrating the attacks  and grisly murders were doing nothing more than finding another way to celebrate their own self inflicted futility in not having a state and doing what they can to insure for themselves that nothing  in the future  is going to change for them. And answers the question of which Arafat they want to celebrate. And guarantees that what  they will get in return are the same things  Arafat brought them. 

Monday, November 10, 2014

Gwen Graham's victory in Florida is proof of what Democrats could have done to win.





In a night when Democrats took a real beating across the country especially in the senate where Democratic incumbents lost 6 seats and will probably lose a 7th after the Louisiana runoff, and lost more seats in the House, a beating that was entirely predictable for anyone watching the inept approach and campaigns by Democratic candidates , their strategists and the DNC who refused to be honest about the failures of Democratic leadership by Obama, Pelosi and Reid,  Gwen Graham, a Democrat running against a 2 term Republican incumbent in Florida's 2nd district, a Republican district that went for Romney in 2012, beat him in a night that was an otherwise disaster for most Democratic candidates. 

And she did it by doing what Democrats all over the country should have and could have and still won -- by being brutally honest about the Obama presidency and failures of leadership of Obama, Pelosi and Harry Reid. And not being afraid to say so. 

In one debate, Graham refused to endorse Nancy Pelosi as Democratic leader and now, after winning, giving Obama a lesson on how to make a statement and actually stick to it, she has come out saying she will not vote for Pelosi as minority leader. A recognition of Pelosi's failures and the real need for Democrats to clean house. And she made it clear when she said ," I am not President Obama, I'm not Nancy Pelosi and I'm not Harry Reid".  That statement didn't inspire and bring out Republican voters to vote for her, it brought out Democratic voters. 


In a year when Republican challengers beat Democratic incumbents across the country, in big enough numbers to gain seats in the House and take control of the senate, Graham was a Democratic challenger who beat a 2 term Republican incumbent in a Republican district.

If Grahams' victory over a Republican incumbent on a night when Republicans crushed Democrats doesn't make clear what Democrats should have done to win and will have to do to win in 2016, then they are too  inept to deserve to be in the majority.  And if Hillary Clinton has presidential aspirations for 2016 she needs to stop doing what she did in Iowa last month and stop talking about "Obama's leadership".

Graham won because she did something too many Democratic candidates refused to do, and what the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and their surrogates at MoveOn, People For the American Way, Daily Kos and others refused to do -- she told the truth about Obama, Pelosi and Reid while at the same time affirming Democratic polices and beliefs, the same beliefs betrayed by Obama, Pelosi and Reid repeatedly which is what brought down the Democrats in 2010 and has again in 2014.

Graham stood up for Democratic party ideals, policies and convictions while standing up against Obama, Pelosi and Reid showing she is someone who will think for herself, now and in the future. And that is what led to her victory and where Democrats lost to Republican challengers. 

That it was a failure of leadership for Democrats from the top down that cost them the election is evident that in 5 of the 6 states where Republican challengers defeated Democratic incumbents, those same states approved ballot initiatives to raise the minimum wage and approved them by margins that can only be called an avalanche, some by as many as 40 points. Raising the minimum wage is a Democratic  initiative, a Democratic Party principle and that policy and principle not only won but won big in states where Democratic candidates lost big. You can say "go figure" but its not hard to figure.

You really have to be a political village idiot not to understand the lesson of Graham's victory against a Republican incumbent in a Republican district and a core Democratic policy winning in states where Democratic candidates lost.

 It was one preached here for months because it was easy to see coming, unless you were a Democratic strategist more interested in cashing your pay check and going along to get along,  rather than accomplishing your goals or an Obama sycophant with your head in the sand. And it was  based on three simple unavoidable  facts of life -- truth, consequences,  and reality. 

 The reality of the issues at the heart of the election and the Obama presidency was ignored by the DCCC and the DSCC and their surrogates who spent all their time groveling for campaign contributions thinking the only thing that mattered was money. Which also ignored David Bratt's Republican primary victory over Eric Cantor,who was not only Boehner's right hand man in the House but who outspent Brat 26-1. And lost.

There were many issues and failures of the Obama presidency that Democrats ignored not the least of which was health care reform and Obamacare. In spite of the mind bending distortions and flat out lies of the White House and the sycophancy of Pelosi, Obamacare was and is an unmitigated failure. Of the 50 million uninsured Americans before the implementation of Obamacare, most of whom are probably  Democratic constituents, one year after Obamacare, 48 million are still uninsured because the health insurance offered by the insurance company written Obamacare law was still much too expensive. Making Pelosi's mantra about Obamacare, "affordable, affordable,affordable" a joke to the 48 million who couldn't afford it.

 One doesnt have to be a political scientist to figure out how many of those people felt they had nothing to vote for and didnt even show up to vote and what a difference they might have made if Obamacare was 1/10th the success Democrats tried to claim. Or if Democrats were honest about it and pledged to do something better. Like bring back the public option.

And keep in mind Obama is still lying about the numbers. In a post election press conference he tried to claim that Obamacare enrolled 10 million people. Even that number would have represented failure since 98% of enrollments were by people who previsouly had insurance. But the actual number is a little over half that -- about 5.5 million who actually enrolled with only about 1.2 million of those people who were previously uninsured.

If this election doesn't make clear that Democrats need to not just clean house but to throw open the windows and air the place out, they will lose again in 2016 and nothing will prevent it.

They can start by learning a lesson from  Gwen Graham's victory and what it means to tell the truth, be your own person  and deal with reality even if that truth goes against the frayed idea of party loyalty when no loyalty is deserved. And at least, by replacing their leadership Democrats will begin to show the American people and rank and file Democrats, many of whom who stayed home in 2010 and 2014, that they mean business.  And that real hope and change are coming.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Obama weakness, dishonesty, failures and ineptitude buries Democrats.








Back in 2008 when Barrack Obama was elected along with a Democratic party sweep in the House and senate giving Obama and the Democrats the biggest congressional majority any president had in 60 years, one of the first things he said as the newly elected president who's party had just won a landslide victory over the opposition across the board was, " I want Republican ideas".

Which not only goes down in history as the single dumbest comment ever made by a newly elected president, it was a harbringer of things to come and should have revealed to any Democrat that it was going to be a bumpy ride because of  who and what he was: not a Republican, not a  Democratic president who favored Republican ideas, or even a Democrat who favored Democratic party ideas, but a truly empty politician with no real convictions or principles and no intention of fullfilling the promises and pledges he made (which was evident during the 2008 primaries). It all proved to be true.


Seemingly it never occurred to Obama in 2008 that if the country had wanted Republican ideas after 8 years of George W. Bush and a Republican congress and the catastrophes they caused, they wouldn't have elected him president and the Democrats to congress with the biggest majority of any party in 60 years, a majority Obama wasted his first two years. Now that seems like a long time ago.


Over the next 6 years, time and again Obama caved in to Republican opposition. Not that he gave them what they wanted. He just didn't give the country, the Democratic party or his Democratic supporters and the people who voted for him what they wanted and expected based on all the pledges and promises he made, every one of which he either reneged on or broke in one way or another.

And through it all, Democrats, hand picked sycophants in the Democratic party leadership and people who call themselves progressives at various Democratic and progressive groups around the country like MoveOn, Daily Kos, or PFAW, set new standards in lying to themselves about the Obama presidency.

For decades reality has proved that Democratic party ideas, initiatives, and policies have worked and benefited the country in major ways while Republican policies, when in a position to be implemented have been an unmitigated disaster for the country from Herbert Hoover to George W. Bush, and for the most part have never worked.

Yet , with the exception of the Clinton years,  Democrats do not seem to have a political strategist worth 2c who has been able to formulate a strategy, message or  design political campaigns that know how to use substance and facts against Republican policies to give people a good reason to vote for Democrats.

Instead they do utterly stupid things like trying to make the Koch Brothers the issue instead of giving people a substantive  reason to vote for them over Republicans. Though admittedly with Obama's failures and his capitulations which resulted in none of the Democratic agenda being implemented that would have been hard to do without repudiating Obama which was suggested here for months as a necessary truth and fact of life if Democrats didn't want to lose and lose big.

Nancy Pelosi, who along with Obama and Harry Reid were responsible in 2010 for the Democrats suffering the worst political defeat of any party in 80 years only two years into Obama's first term after gaining the biggest majority in 60 years because they went along with Obama's dropping of the public option and sell out of health care reform, this year urged congressional Democrats to run on Obamacare, chiding Democratic candidates that the first word in the Affordable Care Act was " affordable, affordable, affordable". Given that 98% of the 50 million uninsured in America are still uninsured because under Obamacare they still cant afford coverage offered by insurance companies who wrote the bill, Pelosi's Marie Antoinette act didn't go over very well with voters.

Given the disatrsous results of the 2014 elections for Democrats it would be worth remembering that, with the exception of Bill Clinton, Democrats are always running not to lose. But even in 2008 when any Democrat running for president would have beaten any Republican, even when Democrats couldn't lose they found a way.

In a year when Democrats couldn't lose the hierarchy of the Democratic party chose to rig their primary process and convention to assure Obama had the nomination with the help of some dishonest journalists instead of just letting the process play out honestly.  They did it perhaps because Democrats know they cant win any kind of national election without African American support. But by forcing the issue with  Obama, they found a way to lose in the long run and they have been paying the price ever since.

Democrats were crushed in the 2014 elections and it was a defeat largely of their own making. They stood idly by and let a weak, indecisive president with no real convictions and no commitment to the Democratic or liberal agenda sell out, capitulate and compromise every Democratic party ideal and belief,  a president who sold out healthcare reform for a watered down version written by the insurance companies and couldn't get a single piece of gun safety legislation passed in the aftermath of Sandyhook even though it was supported by 86% of the American people. In foreign policy, Isis and failures in the Middle East and being bullied by Putin and looking weak  over Ukraine and a red line over chemical weapons that disappeared when it was crossed, didn't help.

Obama caved in so many times on so many issues people working at the White House probably went to work wearing miner's helmets with little flashlights on top so they could wave and see each other amid the debris.

He fail miserably and inadequately in dealing with every unexpected issue or crisis that emerged either domestically or foreign. And congressional Democrats and Democratic political groups didn't have the backbone to stand up and say something. Or rebel. Instead they lied to themselves and in the aftermath of the election some still are.

What must be especially painful for Democrats is that with 68% of Americans saying the country is on the wrong track, it's not because Obama implemented Democratic policies, it's because he didn't. And it cost them the election.

The Democratic party needs an overhaul in leadership and it needs to start now.  The triumverate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid is what brought the Democrats down.

A close look at the election results make clear what happened. Independents didn't want to send a message to Democrats that they approved of Obama's presidency and voted Republican, and many Democrats didn't want to send a message that they approved of Obama's presidency and stayed home. And to underscore how much this election was a repudiation of Obama and not Democratic policies, five red states who elected Republican senators, voted to increase the minimum wage in their states and did it by landslide margins, in some cases by a margin of 40 points.  So it wasn't a rejection of policy. It was a rejection of a vacuum created by Obama and Democratic leadership where there was no policy. As Obama pointed out when he said publicly that he had no strategy on Isis. The result of his rejecting the advice for three years of his own Secretary of State and two Secretaries of Defense.

Democrats need new leadership starting now and they need to take that mantel away from Obama even with 2 years remaining in his term. If they don't 2016 could be a repeat of 2014. And 2010. Just as I  correctly predicted in  August of 2010 (to blow my own horn)  that if they let Obama drop the public option on healthcare they would get wiped out of congress in the November election. And as I predicted repeatedly this year warning that if Democrats didn't, not just distance themselves, but repudiate Obama's undermining of the Democratic agenda, admit  his mistakes and  his failures,  and stand up for Democratic policies instead of the stupid, inane strategy of trying to run against the Koch Brothers and their money, they would get wiped out again.

The Democrats have less than two years to clean house and get it in order.  And that means new leadership.  By somebody.  Which includes no more whiney dishonest fund raising emails by Democratic campaign committees, extolling the virtues of Obama and being so stupid as to think that is going to motivate a Democratic base that has seen Obama sell out their agenda.

Because now they have to deal with the reality that, when Obama was elected in 2008, and said " I want Republican ideas",  thanks to him and Democratic party leadership, they are going to get them , and be forced to deal with Republican ideas  for at least the next two years.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

For Democratic candidates, it may be time for the sinking ship to desert the rat.




Since he was elected president, Barrack Obama has betrayed, reneged on, undermined, lied and sold out every Democratic party ideal, principle, promise and pledge he ever made and that Democratic voters expected to be fullfulled by him and wasn't.

The list is so long it's pointless to go into every one,and most of his failures were and still are the result of horrendous judgement and capitulations even when no capitulation was needed or neccessary, all the result of sheer political and policy cowardice. There is no other word to describe it. Nothing Obama has ever  done or not done has ever been the result of principle or conviction or a willingness to stand up to or for anything and fight for it. 

But when it comes to Obamacare it is impossible to overstate how complete a disaster, betrayal, sell out,  abject failure and act of political and policy cowardice Obamacare actually is, a truly ineffective peice of "junk", as Howard Dean once called it  despite the latest cheesy and dishonest fund raising emails from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out in Barbara Streisand's name or Nancy Pelosi thanking heaven for Obamacare and trying to raise money based on supporting the last two years of the Obama presidency, a strategy so dumb its painful.

Dishonest Democratic party fund raising emails signed by Nancy Pelosi, Biden, Harry Reid and Obama himself(how dishonest? Some use my zip code and claim if they don't get x amount of contributions from my zip code by midnight they may as well throw in the towel)   literally beg and plead ( in many cases actually groveling) for contributions to get a Democratic majority for Obama for his last two years. What they hope everyone will forget, is that Obama had a Democratic majority in congress in the first two years of his presidency, the biggest congressional majority any president has had in 60 years and he wasted it with his unnecessary capitulations, none greater than Obamacare.

And since Obamacare is called his "signature legislative achievement", it's worth examing why the signature is a forgery.

First,  Obamacare is the most underhanded and egregious sellout of a government policy to a special interest group ( the health insurance lobby) in American history. It was a bait and switch  healthcare reform bill that would have made the sleaziest used car dealer in America cringe. Obamacare was  healthcare reform designed to benefit, not the people who needed healthcare but the insurance companies. It was a bill that Howard Dean, former chair of the Democratic National Committee, presidential candidate, governor and physician said was junk before the senate vote, and publicly said right before the Supreme Court decision that he hoped Obamacare was overturned. There is nothing in Obamacare that has any value that wouldn't have been automatic with the public option. But there is a lot of good the public option would have done which the Democrats had the votes to pass, that that went down the drain with Obamacare.

Here are the facts related to Obamacare: of the 50 million Americans who were uninsured before Obamacare, 48.5 million Americans are still uninsured because they can't afford even the cheapest plans offered by Obamacare which comes with high premiums $6,000 deductibles, 40% co-pays and often require those who did enroll in policies to travel over 100 miles to get to a provider that's in the networks of the cheapest plans.  If it sounds like healthcare reform designed by the insurance companies, its because it is (see the PBS  Frontline documentary on Obama's sell out of healthcare reform to the insurance lobby "Obama's Deal"). Of the 32 million young healthy uninsured that Obamacare needs to succeed, about 3% bought polices,with the rest saying no thanks.And when those who did buy see how little their policies will  cover, they may opt out too the second year.

This what the New York Times reported on Obamacare as recently as October 18 under the headline: "Unable to Meet the Deductible or the Doctor."

The article interviewed and outlined a number of people for whom Obamacare is a colassal failure and its safe to say their stories are true for most who decided to enroll which is why 97.8% of the uninsured in America after looking at what was being offered chose not to. 

Patricia Wanderlich needed brain scan monitoring, but the policy she bought under Obamacare, a bronze policy, the cheapest offered, came with a $6,000 deductible, meaning her medical expenses were not going to be fully covered until she spent $6,000 out of pocket. So she is skipping the brain scan. She cant afford it under the Affordable Care Act.

The deductibles on these plans run from $5-6,000 for individuals to $10,000 for families. And remember that under the wonders of the ACA, these are for plans on the lowest tier, healthcare reform that was supposed to insure those who previously couldn't afford insurance.

The Times article quoted Katherine Hempstead director of health insurance coverage research for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation who said, " unfortunately the people who are attracted to the lower premiums ( in the cheaper plans) are the ones who are going to have the most trouble coming up with the cost sharing if they want to use their insurance".

Whats worse, the deductibles for those who have employer sponsored health plans, those who didn't need Obamacare are considerably lower than the lowest Obamacare deductibles. on average of $1,217 a year compared to an average of $5,081 for an individual on the cheapest Obamacare policy and $10,386 for a family. This is the healthcare reform that Nancy Pelosi, doing her best Marie Antoinette impersonation recently called "affordable, affordable, affordable".

The anecdotal stories are a nightmare. People with low end Obamacare policies who had to use an emergency room getting bills for $1,000 for the ER visit because their Obamacare insurance wouldn't cover it. Had they had no Obamacare  insurance they would've gotten the same emergency room care for nothing.

Another who bought a bronze plan under Obamacare said, "$6,000 for a deductible? Do they think I have that under my mattress? Im just going to do what I can to stay healthy". So not only did Obamacare fail to cover almost 98% of those who couldn't afford health insurance, it provided little or nothing of value to those who decided to buy. Which is why the vast majority of Americans didn't.  In other words to most people Obamacare is worthless, justifying Howard Dean's characterization of it to begin with as "junk".

One of the most egregious examples of why Obamacare is 95% of everything the insurance companies wanted and is doing very few people any good compared to what the public option would have accomplished,  is the case of Dr. Rebecca Love in Moab, Utah. She has a host of self described health problems and her Obamacare insurance came with a $6,000 deductible. But after spending more than $6300 in out of pocket medical expenses she learned none of it was applicable to her deductible because the doctors she was seeing was not in her bronze plan network. In order to see those doctors she would have had to drive more than 100 miles each way.

All of this is for one reason:  Obama didn't have the integrity, the backbone, the principles or conviction to stand up for what was right and what was promised by both he and the Democrats in the public option, which was also a vastly superior healthcare reform policy and a policy that the majority in congress wanted along with the majority of the American people.

Obama had the votes to pass it but instead did what he has done time and time again during his presidency -- reneged on promises, backed down, caved in and sold out in the face of even the slightest pressure, this time to the health insurance lobby who leaned on him to drop the public option because it was going to cost them money.

This lack of conviction or principle or a willingness to stand up for both has been the hallmark of the Obama presidency. And the betrayal of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in going along with Obama's sell out is what cost the Democrats their majority in the House and eroded their majority in the senate.

Whether its about his weak and anemic foreign policy that consistantly backfired, whether on Syria,  being mistrusted by both the Israelis and Palestinians because of his public reversals of policy and so had no influence with either, being intimidated by Putin in Ukraine resulting in the annexation of Crimea and a wider war in the east, his failure to live up to his own red line over the use of chemical weapons against civilians,being caught unawares and napping with Isis, along with his domestic failures on any kind of meaningful gun safety legislation, the disastrous  Unaffordable Care Act,  his failure to close Gitmo and his expansion of NSA spying on Americans to name a few, any  Democrat running anywhere will go a lot further by honestly repudiating Obama and his failures including Obamacare,  than embracing Obama's presidency or trying to defend what can't be defended.

Obama's failures and how most Democratic voters feel about it predictably escapes every Democratic strategist and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee itself which is still sending out fund raising emails to Democratic voters to raise more money by offering free "Proud Obama Voter" bumper stickers for a president with a 43% approval rating and 65% who say the country is going in the wrong direction. Democratic political strategists at their best.

As for party loyalty, Democrats need to keep in mind that when health insurance policies started being cancelled, and Republicans began attacking Democrats and Obama over the promise " if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance", Obama preferred to put Democrats backs to the wall and take the hit to his credibility and approval rating rather than tell the truth: that he never made that promise about Obamacare, but said it about the public option in response to Republican attacks that the public option was a government take over of health care. That Obama would throw congressional Democrats under the bus rather than tell the truth, which would have invited comparisons between Obamacare and the public option he didnt want made, or how and why Obamacare became a substitute for the public option is all Democrats need to know about loyalty.

Standing up against and running against Republican policies is one thing. Supporting a failed, duplictious, less than honest and weak Obama presidency is another. And with the election only a few weeks away and polls showing Democratic candidate leads shrinking in many close elections, the only question for Democrats now is, is it too late?

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Obama's Isis coaliton on ground troops: You first, no you first, no you first.





In the fight against Isis, Obama has used all the diplomatic skill at his disposal which is to say virtually none,  and managed to put together a coalition of the willing to hold everyone else's coat.

As Isis closes in on Khobani threatening another massacre while also closing in on Baghdad Airport, the issue continues to be one of ground troops.

There is no one with any knowledge or military expertise who has not said that there is no defeating or destroying Isis without the implementation of ground troops. And the most logical source of ground troops to fight Isis is also the most illogical -- the Iraqi army.

A current map of Iraq showing the territory Isis has already taken says enough about the ability of the Iraqi army to take on Isis. And many blame the pull out of U.S. troops in 2011 as the primary reason contrary to Obama's assertion that he had no choice, that Malaki insisted on the removal of all U.S. troops. Everyone in a position to know from former Secretaries of Defense Gates and Panetta as well as members of congress have said Obama could have left a residual force if had the will. 

While the U.S. said they will now train the Iraqis, it will take 5-6 months to accomplish that and even then there is no guarantee it will be adequate. 

As for the coalition, the country best in a position to send ground troops to fight Isis at the moment is Turkey. Except Turkey has said they will not send ground troops into Iraq or Syria to fight Isis because no other NATO member has sent in ground troops.

Turkey has also made it a condition that the U.S.  must get involved militarily in Syria against Assad, something Obama had been advised to do 3 years ago by arming the moderate Syrian rebels and rejected. Turkey is also demanding the U.S. establish a no fly zone in Syria, effectively grounding Assad's ability to carry out air assaults, something that had also been recommended to Obama 3 years ago but that he rejected. As if that isn't bad enough, Turkey is now bombarding the Kurds, the only meaningful military resistance on the ground against Isis and doing it over Obama's pleas, over escalating long standing disputes between Turkey and the Kurds. 

So far no other NATO country has been willing to put in ground troops. And while a wave of former high ranking military commanders in the U.S. have gone public recently saying the U.S. has to put ground troops into the battle to destroy Isis, the most recent being former Maj. General and Commandant of the Marine Corps James Conway, Obama has said repeatedly he will not send ground troops to fight Isis, effectively putting himself in a box.
Without any U.S. leadership in dealing with Isis its unlikely any other country will be willing to take the lead and move first.

FBI and other intelligence assessments are that the current air strikes are having little effect on stopping the Isis advance. Nor will it.  It has damaged or destroyed some heavy weapons but has not prevented Isis from controlling 80% of Khobani and moving within 8 miles of Baghdad airport where there are some 200 U.S. troops.

The Pentagon has admitted that the air strikes have only destroyed some command and control and Isis training facilities . But the Isis fighters taking ground in Iraq and Syria  are no longer going through training, they are out there killing. So the air strikes are bombing empty training facilities and will do nothing to change anything on the ground.

So Isis continues to roll with the Kurds the only effective fighting force on the ground providing effective resistance but only in the territory they currently control.

Turkey has agreed to train 4000 Syrian rebels but that will take months. The Iraqi army is still for the most part inadequate. And no one involved in Obama's coalition of the willing to hold someone else's coat seems to be inclined to send in ground troops against Isis -- not Jordan, not the Saudis, not Turkey not France, the UK, Germany or Italy. Everyone is waiting for someone else to go first.

The decision to send in U.S. ground troops which is being advocated by military leaders as well as some members of congress while others oppose it, isn't a difficult decision based on one factor. Is Isis a real threat to the U.S. mainland or not? If not then the U.S. has no business sending in ground troops to defend a region that should be defending itself. If Isis is a real threat to the UK, France and other European countries and countries in the Middle East like the Saudis and Jordan, then they should bear the brunt of the fight with U.S. support.

But, if those inside the U.S. government in a position to know believe Isis is or will be a legitimate threat to the U.S. mainland if they are not destroyed as they have said,  if it is in our interests to stop Isis for our own good and not just humanitarian reasons or to protect other countries,  then we should never be put in a position of asking or counting on anyone else to do our fighting for us when no one can do it as effectively as our military.  Which makes Obama's declaration of never putting in U.S. ground troops as political, myopic, ineffective and ill advised as his original bad decisions and inaction in Syria that created the current situation in the first place.

Obama's insistence that there will be no U.S. troops on the ground regardless of circumstances is not just short sighted but seems to be related to a condition of acronymophobia -- a  fear of acronyms and what they stand for because the acronym for Boots On the Ground is BOG.

NOTE: In running a Google search on "Isis" and "Isis fighters" for an image to use with this post I came across images never shown by any mainstream news organization print or TV, and so probably never seen by most people,  that were so brutal,  so grotesque and so violent that if these images were widely seen and a real threat by Isis to the U.S. mainland was established it would likely change the minds of many who currently say they oppose the use of U.S. ground troops to destroy Isis.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

The intelligence failure on Isis belonged to Obama.




Bush did it after 911. He did it again when no WMD was ever found in Iraq. And now, like Bush before him Obama has taken a leaf from the same playbook and tried to dodge responsibility for his failures and lousy judgement and poor decision making in dealing with Syria, Iraq and Isis  in a 60 Minutes interview.

In that interview he tried to blame his lack of preparedness, his lack of a plan for Syria, his surprise over the lack of fight by the Iraqi military and his inadequate policies that led to the threat that Isis  has become, on what Obama called "intelligence failures". 

It was the intelligence agencies, Obama claimed, who underestimated the strength of Isis and their growth and is the reason Obama was caught off guard and unprepared. And the reason his policies over the last three years failed and produced the threat today known as Isis.

It didnt take long after Obama's interview when an unusual thing happened -- the intelligence services hit back, something they almost never do, and provided reporters with information that contradicted everything Obama had tried to claim in his interview.

Then the usually docile lap-doggish news media did something Obama hadn't counted on either. They started showing archival video of both military and intelligence officials testifying publicly at congressional committee hearings over the last three years, warning of the threat of Isis, recommeding the arming of the moderate Syrian rebels and warning about the void in Iraq left by the total departure of U.S. troops.




Obama also had to contend with Hillary Clinton and then Defense Secretary Leon Panetta  pointing out, that they had both advised Obama  three years ago to arm the moderate Syrian rebels to help them fight against both Assad and against the growing threat of Al-Qaeda in Syria where they had gained a foothold and of which Isis was then a part. Obama refused. He even refused to back up his own threat against Assad of using a missile strike if Assad used chemical weapons,  instead deciding he should ask congress to vote on whether or not he should have permission to back up his word. 


It was also less than a year ago when the threat of Isis was again brought to Obama's attention that he referred to them as "the junior varsity",brushed them off as insignificant and did nothing. He blamed that on intelligence failures too.

 Obama was half right. It was an intelligence failure that enabled Isis to become the force that it is now.  But it was his intelligence failure , something we've seen time and time again, whether it was not living up to his Red Line on chemical weapons which also had the effect of  emboldening Putin in Ukraine or his weak response to Putin's Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea. Not to mention his caving in to the health insurance industry with healthcare reform and dropping the public option.

But , predictably, with Obama now facing stinging rebukes at every turn, including the latest from Panetta,  it didn't take long for Obama to  try and reverse himself and once again go into damage control as he has in the past.

Rather than blame the current situation on intelligence failures as he did originally, he has tried to claim that what he really meant was that the intelligence services didnt and couldn't predict the quick collapse of the Iraqi army and their inability to stand up to Isis.  He was wrong on both counts.

Leon Panetta has said very publicly and very recently that he told Obama in 2011 that he opposed pulling all the troops out of Iraq warning that it would create a vacuum that would leave Iraq vulnerable to exactly the kind of threat Isis poses now and with the political vacuum also caused by Maliki, Panetta pointed out that it was not surprising that Iraqi soldiers didn't know who or what they were fighting for elected to desert and go back to their families rather than take a bullet for a government it didn't respect. 

And the criticism has continued to get  worse for Obama. A spokesman for the Syrian Emergency Task Force in Washington D.C.  recently told CNN the same thing -- the void created by the total pull out of U.S. troops in 2011 when a residual force should have stayed ( despite Obama's claim that he had no choice ) is what allowed Isis to flourish and get the upper hand in Iraq. He echoed Panetta virtually word for word by  pointing out that had Obama adopted the same policy three years ago that he is adopting now,  the same policy that Clinton and Panetta and others had advocated, there wouldnt be an Isis today.

Despite his assertions to the contrary, in the last week Obama's public face has been hit with pies coming   from all directions, the most damaging from Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta, the two most important members of Obama's cabinet in his first term.  Panetta has also recently criticized Obama for his current decison to take U.S. ground troops off the table not only because it sounds more like a political decision than tactical and also tells the enemy what Obama will and will not do, but even more importantly, because air strikes will not be decisive as they are proving and only ground troops, most notably U.S. troops, are really capable of destroying Isis if they are the real threat to U.S.  national security others say they are.

But none of this has stopped Obama from continuing to make public pronouncements that  duck responsibility for his lack of preparedness in dealing with Isis and the collapse of the Iraqi military, even at times blaming media coverage while trying  to ignore the meringue all over his face. Which  doesn't bode well for doing what may be needed in the future to destroy Isis.  Any more, as Panetta pointed out,  than Obama's backing down over his Red Line on the use of chemical weapons or his  tepid sanctions against Russia were effective against Assad or stopping Putin. 

But instead of continuing to be in denial,  Obama could help begin to  restore his credibility if he at least took the first step. And asked for a towel.

ADDENDUM: Jimmy Carter has now joined the pie throwing and has publicly criticized Obama for waiting too long and ignoring for three years both the threat of Isis and advice from the top people in his cabinet and the military.  The Joint Chiefs also have admitted the air strikes will have no affect on the battlefield and are limited to targeting command and control and oil reserves which serves to finance Isis. They also said yesterday it will be at least 5-6 months before they are finished training the Iraqi military with no guarantee even then that they will be an effective fighting force,  and while the U.S. now has a brigade force on the ground in Iraq, some members of congress has said that the Joint Chiefs have privately told Obama they are going to need more U.S. ground troops in Iraq to do the job militarily if destroying Isis is really the goal.

ANOTHER VOICE AND ANOTHER PIE:

Retired former Commandant of the  Marine Corps. general James Conway has now joined the melee  and thrown his pie, saying that Obama's current strategy in Syria against Isis,
" doesnt have a snowballs' chance in hell" of succeeding. As for Iraq, he is a bit more optimitic but not much. He stated that with a new government in Iraq, with the U.S. training Iraqi forces,(which wont be ready to fight for 5 months), with the Kurds committed to fighting Isis on the ground, and U.S. air support, with all of that  "there is a  60% chance" of Obama's strategy in Iraq working. Which doesnt exactly inspire confidence if Isis is in fact a threat to U.S. national security and destroying Isis is the goal.