Just A Sign Of The Times......

Link: Did Obama Threaten To Shoot Down Israeli Warplanes?


Its so hard to believe, but 2016 is almost upon us.  For me, the years pass so quickly, now that time has become so valuable.  When I was younger, the term "middle age" was always confusing to me.  It was meant to describe people in their 50s and early 60s (if my memory serves me correctly), but I found myself doing the math each and every time, and coming away perplexed.  When I was fourteen, my middle-aged Grandmother was fifty-nine years old.  Since she was considered middle-aged, shouldn't she expect to live to be somewhere near one-hundred twenty?  She departed for her just rewards at around seventy-three years old.  So "middle age" will just remain one of those quaint American terms that are impossible to translate.  But my age is immaterial to this post.  Hillary Clinton's age is a more apropos topic.  How old is Hillary nowadays, anyway?  Wikipedia says she's sixty-seven.  Wow; the years have been rough on Hillary, and I mean no disrespect.  Washington DC is a stressful town, and the cost of doing the nation's business can always be seen on the faces of the veterans like Hillary.  Poor Mitch McConnell; his turkey neck will on occasion catch a gust of wind and blow him backwards five feet.  I was going to say that Barbara Mikulski has been in DC so long that you can't really determine her gender, but actually, she arrived that way.  Not too many pretty faces in Congress nowadays, and some of it is self-inflicted.  I'm still totally confused about John Boehner's merry-go-round of tans. Sometimes he's Bahamas brown as a coconut, and the next day he will be lightly bronzed like a peanut.  What a circus. 

Circus or not, 2016 is almost upon us.  I am so appalled at the state of affairs in the United States that I try to avoid addressing the long-term.  My view is, that from an integrity perspective, its never to late to start doing the right thing.  If the 2016 President-elect, with a compliant Congress, decides to tackle the national debt, how exactly do you get your hands around twenty trillion dollars?  Don't forget, all of those outstretched hands aren't going anywhere, and the first elected leader who realistically attempts to attack Entitlements had better have thick skin.  The only way to effectively attack the national debt is with targeted, substantial cuts to Entitlements.  The current Administration has presided over the most massive growth in Entitlements that this country has ever seen.  Commercials are produced by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services that encourage people to examine themselves to look for evidence of partial disability.  There can be no doubt that the Obama Administration is determined to create a population that is solely dependent on the government from cradle to grave.  I can't think of anything more un-American.  But President Obama can't run for re-election, and currently he's singularly focused on trying to salvage his legacy by sponsoring a Nuclear Power Treaty with Tehran.  Is there an American in this country who actually believes that the government of Iran will abide by a Treaty it signs with the U.S.?  Since they've been so quick to remind us of our "Great Satan" reputation, why would we expect them to feel bound to any agreement they might sign?  But you can rest assured that a Treaty will be signed.  President Obama likes to pretend before the cameras that his tough-as-nails negotiators won't accept a weak or unverifiable Treaty, but you know just as well as I do, that their marching orders were to conclude a Treaty first, apply window dressing second.  Welcome to Operation Salvaging the Legacy.

Out here in the Texas Hill Country, I rarely hear rumors.  But believe it or not, we do get the internet down here deep in Red State territory, and so close to the Cradle of Texas Liberty, the Alamo.  Per the link that I have provided above, a few weeks back a Kuwaiti newspaper (with a respected Editor) published a report, claiming that sometime in 2014, the Israelis were considering a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear research facilities, and that U.S. President Barrack Obama threatened to intercept and shoot down any Israeli planes who attempted such unilateral military action.  We have learned only recently that negotiations with the Iranians were ongoing in 2014 as well.  What have we become?  And how was it accomplished in such a short period of time?  I have no choice but to assume that the approval numbers for Obama, which currently reside near fifty percent, are accurate.  Is it possible that fifty percent of the American public believe that Obama has done a good job with the economy, and has made the United States a safer place to raise our children?  I'm old enough to remember when Jimmy Carter was elected President in 1976; it was the year of the bicentennial, and the year my beloved Guinea Pig, Snowball, died of heat stroke.  I remember my father supported President Gerald Ford for re-election, but many people, especially in the younger subgroups, were visibly excited about a Carter Presidency.  Many folks associated the Republicans with two negative issues: the Vietnam War and the Nixon scandal.  Governor (of Georgia) Jimmy Carter promised an entire new direction. 

Carter was victorious is one of the most astonishingly close elections in our nation's history, and his was true to his convictions.  His policies were implemented at the earliest opportunity. And before you could say "oops", the country began to come apart at the seams.  The economy was stagnant and refuse to grow.  Our foreign policy appeared to be crafted as the day went on, with a public opposition to all terrorism but a behind-the-scenes willingness to talk to anyone.  By the time an attempt to rescue the American hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran had failed, even Carter seemed to understand that his ideas just weren't in sync with the American people.  he did run for re-election, beating Senator Ted Kennedy for the Democratic nomination, but he was thoroughly trounced by the former Republican Governor of California, Ronald Reagan.  The reason we have taken this little trip down memory lane, is because I can recall that many people who originally voted for Carter in 1976, had not trouble admitting that they had made a mistake.  Just as many Republicans were quick to acknowledge their support of Richard Nixon as an error.  In fact, being big enough to own up to a bad political decision seems very American to me.  But we have undergone a tremendous Sea Change in the last twenty years.   The country could be burning to the ground around us, with Al-Qaeda chopping of heads for lunch at the local Dollar General, and folks would still vote for Barrack Obama.  This explains why, with a twenty trillion dollar deficit, a confused and bumbling foreign policy, a military that can't provide basic health care to its veterans, and a small group of elite politicians who continue to live above the law (Hello, Hillary).  I guess its all just a sign of the times......  

Can't Help Myself - My Comments On This Torture Business

Link: Senator Kirk Telling It Like It Is


Before this issue exploded on the front page of the NY Times, I did not have much to say about Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois.  Interestingly enough, today he became my choice for President in 2016.  I have read the Congressional Report on Torture three times cover to cover, and I have yet to see the justification for all the drama.  Obviously some CIA personnel stepped outside the bounds of their authority.  This FACT was determined years ago, by the CIA's own internal investigation.  Individuals were punished appropriately as far as the process allows.  If you don't like the process, and want to bring CIA personnel to trial for alleged acts against foreign nationals, more power to you.  But you have to change the process (and law) first.  The release of this report was nothing more than rehashing information that was already available to the public.  I never saw any of the disgusting acts described in the report, which isn't surprising since they were the exception, not the rule. One, possibly two detainees were put through some process called "anal feeding".  Its horrible, inhumane and not allowed.  Anyone who participated in that type of behavior should be punished to the furthest extent according to the policies that are in place.  The same can be said for anyone who engaged in slapping, punching, or kicking detainees.  I'm also appalled by the allegation of Agency officers putting restraints on legs of persons with leg or ankle injuries.  I am not opposed to the use of Waterboarding in extreme circumstances.  A clearly defined set of guidelines should determine the proper use of this form of enhanced interrogation.  I know Waterboarding has saved lives.  It will do so again in the future if it is "recalled" to use.  But that decision was, and always will remain above my pay grade. Otherwise, in my opinion the least amount of physical contact between guards and detainees is the best policy.

I had a short but important conversation with my friend Joseph.  JJ and I seldom agree on politics but otherwise we get along famously.  I put great value on humor, and JJ sure knows how to make me laugh.  I think JJ was a bit worried that I would be one of those stereotypical bully-types that are usually associated with intimidating others.  Actually, I don't think he thought I was "one of them", but he was concerned that I might be a sympathizer.  Truth be told, I've met more than a handful of the kind of folks who are usually suffering from a permanent case of The Napoleon Syndrome (or Small Man's Syndrome).  I'm not comfortable around anyone who derives pleasure from degrading others.  I am convinced that people who get pleasure from dominating or humiliating others are suffering from some form of psychosis.  I'm sure that the U.S. Government at one time or another has hired both men and women who fit that description.  But I don't believe it was ever a planned strategy.  I'm sure the CIA has hired persons like this as well, but I'm convinced it was the rare exception as opposed to the rule.  I can assure you that the persons the CIA chooses to interview detainees have no intention of physical interaction.  I believe that the rare (singular?) instances detailed in the recently released Congressional Report shed light on a few bad apples who have since been appropriately disciplined.  As usual, what the report does not mention are the thousands and  thousands of lives that have been saved through enhanced interrogation techniques.  I am personally offended and angered when a Congressman or Congresswoman allege that CIA interrogation techniques have not been successful.  Its not only a false allegation, its libelous. But Congress can say whatever it chooses because the Agency is an easy target.  The CIA has no built-in mechanism to defend itself from internal attack.  I guess the men who built the organization did not anticipate that the U.S. Government would become so self-destructive as to turn on the nation's professional clandestine service.  Some people will not be happy until the CIA is disbanded.

The September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the intended attack which tragically ended in a field in Pennsylvania, initiated a great deal of commentary from both Congress and the mainstream media.  I remember it like it was yesterday, because I felt like I had a bullseye on my back.  How could these butchers and cowards have managed to pull this off?  Where was the CIA?  Why didn't our intelligence services discover the plot beforehand?  The process has become so predictable.  The Intelligence Agencies, responding to intense pressure from whatever Administration is in power, leaves no stone unturned to improve intel collection, particularly human intelligence, which has proven time and again to be the most valuable.  Almost immediately, the media starts the countdown until they are in a position to point out that the CIA hasn't changed; that its still nothing but a bunch of bully-types who are looking for weaker folks to dominate.  Occasionally the CIA is able to walk the thin line between the "not enough" and "too much" cacophony, but at the end of the day, I believe the Agency's days are numbered.  You have no idea how painful it is to give consideration to such a thought.  But something that used to be whispered about (how will the USG delegate the distribution of Agency responsibilities to other Departments, Agencies and Bureaus) is now discussed openly.

I was really encouraged to learn about Senator Kirk's justified and accurate portrayal of the events leading up to this post.  Feinstein's staffers, already less-than enthusiastic towards the CIA, took full advantage of the opportunity to re-introduce information that has already been disseminated in DC.  But the story was broadcasted in a manner which all but labeled the details as "previously confidential".  Who is Diane Feinstein (and her staffers) to accuse anyone of anything?  They are so out of their league in this business.  And we all know that if, God forbid, the enemy strikes again, this time in California, Feinstein will be the first in line, wanting to know why the Intelligence Agencies weren't more aggressive in their collection efforts.  Like most people, occasionally I can get a bit of the gorilla red-ass about things in DC, but Feinstein's release of this document has upset me more than usual.  She should no longer be allowed to participate in classified briefings.  If I were soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader McConnell I would make sure she was not present during classified briefings.  Since she has decided that she is the only one smart enough to decide what should be released for public consumption and what shouldn't (I don't recall any Feinstein wadded panties during the Clinton Administration's flirtation with missiles to China or the bombing of Serbia to move the conversation away from Monica Lewinsky), then I don't believe she should have access to classified information.

Congress needs to address entitlements and stop digging around in the military and intelligence budgets to save a quarter here and there.  The big money is in entitlement reform.  A sincere effort by Congress and the President, with politics not allowed in the room, can result in serious tax and entitlement reform.  Fraud needs to be addressed and eradicated, and congressional junkets and airports to nowhere must become a thing of the past.  All manner of entitlements must be addressed: no more multi-million dollar grants to the University of South Commode to determine why sober college students have sex less often than drunk college students, or five million dollars to Ass Napkin University to research the causes of color blindness in worms (the schools were invented but the research and grants were real).  Also, someone in Congress please pass legislation that outlaws an incoming president from rewarding donors with absurd billion-dollar grants for eco-friendly research.  Give me the red marker for a week; I'm more than ready to tackle DC spending.  And I can do it without cutting the budgets of the military or the intelligence community.