About Me

Name: Always To The...
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Israel, Iran And Obama

The west has left Israel little choice but to attack Iran

The mullahs understand that the only real challenge to their nuclear ambitions is likely to come from Israel. They've long concluded that the U.N. is no threat, as IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has in practice become an apologist for Iran's program. They can also see that the West lacks the will to do anything, as the Obama Administration continues to plead for Tehran to negotiate even as Iran holds show trials of opposition leaders and journalists for saying the recent re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was fraudulent. The irony is that the weaker the West and U.N. appear, the more probable an Israeli attack becomes.

In recent days, the Administration has begun taking a harder line against Tehran, with talk of "crippling" sanctions on Iran's imports of gasoline if the mullahs don't negotiate by the end of September. Rhetorically, that's a step in the right direction. But unless Mr. Obama gets serious, and soon, about stopping Iran from getting a bomb, he'll be forced to deal with the consequences of Israel acting in its own defense.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Heroes And Villains

UK documents show Lockerbie bomber set free for oil contracts

What does it say about the governments in Edinburgh and London that Moammar Gaddafi’s son has been more honest about this than Brown, Straw, and MacAskill?  Seif Islam (Gaddafi) had insisted from the beginning that Megrahi got exchanged for the completion of oil contracts with the Libyan government.  Perhaps Brown and his team thought Libya would be more discreet, but the Libyan government needs to build its credibility with its subjects — and freeing Megrahi would be far too tempting for public-relations purposes to remain silent.

What happens to Brown’s government now?  Will Parliament issue a vote of no confidence and force his resignation and new elections?  After this debacle, men of honor wouldn’t wait for a vote of no confidence but resign in disgrace, not just for the grubby commercial bargain but for their contemptuous lies afterward.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not The US

Guess who has a missile defense system?

The Bush administration argued for increasing investment in missile defense systems to combat two growing threats — Iran and North Korea.  Barack Obama attacked this policy during the presidential campaign, and has offered to retreat on missile defense in Europe in exchange for Russian concessions on Iran, among other issues.  But Russia’s opposition to missile defense in Europe doesn’t appear to be matched by their increasing fear over North Korea’s missile development  — and its lousy aim

The Russians have taken a more clear-eyed view of the threat from Kim Jong-Il, and not just the threat of aggression.  These missile launches usually fail, especially the longer-range rockets, and that creates a whole new level of threat for North Korea’s neighbors.  They want to knock down anything that goes astray before it hits Russian territory and lots of Russians — just the concern we should have for our allies in South Korea and Japan.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Which Was The Point

Audio: Shea-Porter says “Constitution didn’t cover everything”

Perhaps it’s too much for elected officials in Washington to understand the document to which they swear an oath of loyalty. It certainly proves too much for Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, who responds to an inartfully posed question about the constitutionality of ObamaCare by offering a very odd response. Shea-Porter says that ObamaCare is constitutional because … er … the Constitution doesn’t cover everything … or something

Where to start with this foolishness? Shea-Porter apparently labors under the mistaken belief that Congress runs everything in the US, instead of the proper role of Congress, which is to run the federal government.  The Constitution sets their power and circumscribes it rather clearly in Article I, Section 8 and Section 9 of the Constitution.  The Tenth Amendment reserves all other powers to the states or to the people, underscoring the explicit limitation on Congressional power:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Therefore, when the Constitution does not “cover” a subject, it explicitly and expressly intends for Congress and the federal government to butt out.

The examples Shea-Porter gives are equally clueless.  Drugs, roads, and airplanes fall fairly understandably under the interstate commerce clause of Article I Section 8, although roads in particular have led to a chronic abuse of power by Congress.  Transportation bills fund all sorts of pork-barrel projects — it’s perhaps the most pork-filled of annual appropriations — and fund projects that have nothing to do with interstate commerce.




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Up In Smoke?

CIA docs: EITs worked

As Allahpundit noted last night, both sides are claiming vindication after the release of CIA documents on enhanced-interrogation techniques long sought by former Vice President Cheney.  The memos don’t detail which particular techniques were most effective, but the most “enhanced” of them certainly gets specific recognition for its effectiveness.  Waterboarding played a role in loosening the tongues of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Nashiri, but the CIA was reluctant to specifically claim it as the sole reason for gaining more intel.  With Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, they had no such reservation (via Power Line and Weekly Standard)

The report contradicts what FBI interrogator Ali Soufan wrote in April.  At the time, Soufan wrote about Zubaydah specifically that he felt normal interrogation methods would have worked on the terrorist, and that EITs weren’t necessary for him or anyone else.  The CIA’s experience negates at least in part Soufan’s assertion that “[t]here was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics.”  Part of Soufan’s argument was that Zubaydah would eventually have given up the same information, and the EITs only sped up the process.  However, getting actionable intel on pending attacks quickly was certainly a major motivating factor, as well as quickly assessing al-Qaeda’s structure and financing.  Waiting several months to get that information may have made it moot.

With KSM, the CIA clearly believes that they never would have gotten his intel in time without the specific use of the waterboard.  That vindicates what Cheney has said all along — that the waterboard and the other EITs prevented terrorist attacks in the US and did significant damage to AQ.  In effect, Cheney and apparently the CIA called Obama’s bluff, with the agency finally getting the other side of the argument on EITs in the open.  EITs and specifically the waterboard saved American lives without costing the terrorists being interrogated any lasting physical damage.

Are we to believe that the men who killed 3,000 men, women, and children were so sensitive that those threats would leave them psychologically scarred for life — but mass murder didn’t?  Will the DoJ now prosecute police officers who blow smoke in subjects’ faces, either inadvertently or deliberately, during interrogations?  Isn’t this defining torture down to an absurd level?  If anything, it shows that the statutes governing torture are ridiculously vague.

And how many American lives is it worth to prevent this?  10,000?  5,000?  Your family’s?  Like it or not, those were the stakes in the weeks following 9/11.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

He Likes Spamalot

GovDelivery throwing Obama under the bus?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

And For That Matter, So Does … Ridge?

Uh-oh: Ridge says Bush WH pressured him to raise terror threat levels for re-election

Bush WH figures deny, express puzzlement over Ridge allegations

It didn’t take more than a few hours for key Bush administration officials to respond to allegations forthcoming from Tom Ridge’s memoirs that they had pressured him to raise terrorist threat levels for the 2004 re-election campaign.  Not only did they deny it in the strongest terms, some of them explained to Politico that the process was specifically designed to prevent that kind of political manipulation, and expressed puzzlement over how Ridge could have been “pressured” in a process that was deliberately passive to the NSC and President.  For that matter, a New York Times report seems to indicate that Ridge wasn’t entirely sure, either

So what did Ridge see that made him feel pressured?  Even Ridge seems unsure (emphases mine):

The most sensational assertion was the pre-election debate in 2004 about the threat level, first reported by U.S. News & World Report. Mr. Ridge writes that the bin Laden tape alone did not justify a change in the nation’s security posture but describes “a vigorous, some might say dramatic, discussion” on Oct. 30 to do so.

“There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None,” he writes.I wondered, ‘Is this about security or politics?’ Post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president’s approval rating in the days after the raising of the threat level.”

Mr. Ridge provides no evidence that politics motivated the discussion.

Until now, he has denied politics played a role in threat levels. Asked by Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times if politics ever influenced decisions on threat warnings, he volunteered to take a lie-detector test. “Wire me up,” Mr. Ridge said, according to Mr. Lichtblau’s book, “Bush’s Law.”Not a chance. Politics played no part.

I believe this is a process known better in Washington as “talking out of one’s behind,”  and I’m not referring to the Democratic Party mascot.  Perhaps Lichtblau should have taken Ridge up on his offer.  I’d also note that after this news broke across the media yesterday, the Times’ Book section report leaves this part of their report to the final three paragraphs.

Update: An excerpt from another book quoting Ridge seems to negate this allegation, too:

“In spite of allegations of playing politics, as time went on, our office was more often than not the most reluctant to raise the threat level. Despite perception to the contrary, the White House couldn’t, as a matter of course, call us up and say, ‘Go to orange, Tom.’”

Um, wait … that’s a quote from Ridge’s book, found by Caleb Howe.  He also has this:

It is possible, at this point, that you find none of this very definitive. But that is OK, because Tom Ridge has a definitive statement for you. Earlier in the book, addressing the allegations that political pressure had been applied to raise threat levels, Ridge has this to say:

“Let me make it very clear. I was never directed to do so no matter how many analysts, pundits or critics say so.”

Maybe you should ask your publisher to read your book, Mr. Ridge.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Crackpot Co-Ops

The White House has suggested it would settle for health care cooperatives instead of the public option. Don't drink the Kool-Aid. This arrangement will be nothing more than the public option in disguise.

Read Full Article

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Keep Your Insurance? Not Everyone

From FactCheck.org

Obama's claim depends on what employers would likely do under several legislative scenarios.

August 18, 2009

Summary

President Obama has repeatedly said that under the health care overhaul efforts in Congress, "if you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan." But he can’t make that promise to everyone.

  • In fact, under the House bill, some employers might have to modify plans after a five-year grace period if they don’t meet minimum benefits standards.
     
  • Furthermore, some firms are likely to buy different coverage for their workers than they have now, or simply drop coverage and pay a penalty instead, leaving workers to buy their own private coverage or go on a new federal insurance plan.

The legislation is a moving target, and projections of how many employees would be switched to a federal plan are wide-ranging – from near zero to a high of 56 percent of all covered workers under the most extreme assumptions. We sort through several scenarios.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »