Category Archives: Military

BHO’s Never-Never Debt-Payment Plan (Comments Section Restored)

Barack Obama, Debt, Democrats, Economy, Government, Individual Rights, Military, Political Economy, Taxation, Welfare

When President Obama mouths off about a “free society,” you know that the tokenism will be followed by a list of “liberties” that takes the “vision thing” away from private individuals, and leaves it to souped-up civil servants and voracious bureaucrats. After BHO took great care to tether his “vision” of America to the size of state social programs, here is what the president’s vague, debt-reduction plans entail. A “more balanced approach,” he called it, of “$4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years.” Or, the Never-Never scheme. [Transcript]

It’s an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It’s an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.
The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We’ll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We’ll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.

Meaningless so far.

Next in BHO’s noncommittal outline is a mention of the giant defense budget. No specifics are offered. And a centerpiece of the promise to get serious about such cuts is this cunning catch: cuts are in future spending.

As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.
Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.

[SNIP]

Nothing ventured, a lot gained is the (mangled) maxim Obama follows.

You’ll buy BOH’s “third step,” which “is to further reduce health care spending in our budget,” if you were one of those people who bought the novel idea that an enormous entitlement program, as Obamacare is, will drastically reduce the deficit and debt. The poster person for this mathematical improbability was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Finally, “the fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code,” preached the president. By which he and his menagerie of morons mean not to shorten the tax code to one page, and both reduce and flatten individual and corporate rates—but to sock it to the rich.

Reduction of government debt, in Obama’s perverse moral universe, translates into an increase in state-sanctioned theft.

[My appreciation goes to the New York Times, one of the few outlets that provides transcripts of anything, these days.]

UPDATED: I’m sorry comment section was disabled. it was unintentional. It is restored. Thanks, IronGalt, for the alert.

UPDATE III: Austerity à la America (US Vs. UK)

Britain, Debt, Economy, Europe, Government, Healthcare, Inflation, Military

In their agreement to fiddle with future spending, our politicians are like bank robbers who’ve planned a string of heists, but then decided, charitably, to spare one bank.

The reckless high rollers in DC are congratulating themselves for agreeing to cut about $38 billion from federal spending this year (Bloomberg.com). This minuscule “cut” claws back some parts of an enormous entitlement program that has not yet kicked in: Obamacare.

“According to the Treasury Department, the federal government spent more than eight times what it brought in in the month of March. Eight times.” (CNN)

And the more money you stuff down the feds’ greedy maw, the more it’ll spend.

“Heads between knees, arms over heads, hold that position. Pray if you’re inclined to. Brace for impact!” That’s John Derbyshire’s advice about the coming economic collapse in the US. (If you’ve escaped the debased dollar, all the better.)

UPDATE I (April 10): “Friday’s 348-70 vote to fund the government through the week”: Only “twenty-eight of the ‘no’ votes were cast by Republicans. Sixteen of those are members of the 87-member freshman class. Also voting no: Tea Party star and possible presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.”

That’s an abysmal showing for Republicans and Tea Partiers. Can someone please send a link with an exact breakdown, plus names?

UPDATE II: Two hundred and eight House Republicans voted “yes.” And that’s not a disgrace?

UPDATE III (April 12): Little mentioned in American media is that the non- Micky-mouse countries in Europe and the English have gotten religion on austerity. In his first 100 days in office, David Cameron had gone further than Thatcher did in cutting government. Yes, yes, that’s nothing very impressive, but it’s more than anything that has been done to tackle the debt in the land of the free and home of the brave. The Merkel (Angela) told “financier- philanthropist” George Soros—also an all-round radical and BHO surrogate—to jump when he tried to muscle her into printing and inflating her country’s currency to Weimar-Republic levels.

If our media made these contrasts, perhaps Americans would begin to think beyond the “rah-rah we’re the best” mantra.

Palin Pants For War

Foreign Policy, Just War, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, Propaganda, Sarah Palin, UN, War

The women of the neoconnerie have been instrumental in keeping their fans tuned-out, turned-on, and hot for war. Neocons, in particular, enter a dangerous state of heightened emotional arousal as soon as war is around the corner. Sarah Palin’s war euphoria was on display during “On the Record,” with host Greta Van Susteren, when Palin practically panted for a show of even greater, and certainly grislier, force in Libya. (Here)

“America’s interests” in Libya, Mrs. Palin asserted, lie in either “killing or capturing” Qaddafi. Nothing else will do. If Obama does not order these deeds, “America’s interests” will have been compromised. A non sequitur, if you ask me. Sarah is presuming something not in evidence. If Qaddafi is not murdered, how will this meshuga (here) “seek revenge” here in the USA? Flood our markets with gaudy gowns? Hinder the housing market with his spacious tents?

A good war must also inspire: both Greta and Sarah were agreed. Sarah expressed disappointment that the president didn’t deliver an inspirational war speech. (Transcripts) Following the lead of other countries—“getting in the back of the bus,” as she put it—doesn’t do it for her; doesn’t inspire.

You ask: Can the US not LEAD and INSPIRE the world with its productivity, products; its professionals, and their inventions? Forget about it. Mrs. Palins, like all neocons, conflates the American state—its war making proclivities and powers, in particular—with national greatness.

Like many a criminal, the act of committing crimes (in this case vicariously via the state apparatus) further lowers the war monger’s inhibitions. This base condition accounts for the tolerance for atrocities, and shameless, atavistic call for assassinations and killings.

In her war euphoria, Sarah even forgot that we’re broke, in hock to the tune of $14 trillion and growing. In wondering why Libya, she boasted: “America could intervene with our power and our resources in many other areas.” We can afford to? Really?

By the way, I have a feeling that Obama’s casus belli, embedded in the following excerpt from his speech, will turn out to be a lot like WMD in Iraq:

In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean.

UPDATED: ‘The Three Sisters’ War’ (US Hubris)

Africa, Barack Obama, Feminism, Foreign Policy, Gender, Middle East, Military, Old Right, UN, War

Estrogen driven paternalism: That’s the impetus behind Obama’s offensive in Libya. Patrick J. Buchanan sums it up:

“Why are we in Libya? Why are U.S. pilots bombing and killing Libyan soldiers who have done nothing to us?

These soldiers are simply doing their sworn duty to protect their country from attack and defend the only government they have known from what they are told is an insurgency backed by al-Qaida and supported by Western powers after their country’s oil.

Why did Obama launch this unconstitutional war?

Moral, humanitarian and ideological reasons.

Though Robert Gates and the Pentagon had thrown ice water on the idea of intervening in a third war in the Islamic world – in a sandbox on the northern coast of Africa – Obama somersaulted and ordered the attack, for three reasons.

The Arab League gave him permission to impose a no-fly zone. He feared that Moammar Gadhafi would do to Benghazi what Scipio Africanus did to Carthage. And Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power conveyed to Obama their terrible guilt feelings about America’s failure to stop what happened in Rwanda and Darfur.

This is the three sisters’ war.

But why was it America’s moral duty to stop the Tutsi slaughter of Hutus in Burundi in 1972 or the Hutu counter-slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994? Why was that not the duty of their closest African neighbors, Zaire (Congo), Uganda and Tanzania?

These African countries have been independent for a half-century. When are they going to man up?

The slaughter in Darfur is the work of an Arab League member, Sudan. Egypt, the largest and most powerful Arab nation, is just down the Nile. Why didn’t the Egyptian army march to Khartoum, a la Kitchener, throw that miserable regime out, and stop the genocide?

Why doesn’t Egypt, whose 450,000-man army has gotten billions from us, roll into Tobruk and Benghazi and protect those Arabs from being killed by fellow Arabs? Why is this America’s responsibility?”

Read “How killing Libyans became a moral imperative.”

UPDATE (March 27): USA=GOD.

Myron Robert Pauli on my Facebook page: “Another great column from Diana West on the strategic hooey of the War in Libya (a no fly zone imposed on Israel by the US-NATO-UN-Arab-League could occur one day) http://jewishworldreview.com/0311/west.php3

My reply: M., all the obligatory stuff about it “never being a bad notion to rid the planet of Gaddafi”: as if there aren’t a few fellows here in the US one could easily live without.

The idea that the US decides who the world can do without and who can remain boggles my mind. Still, after years in this country.

I love West, but, as far as I know, Diana supported the Iraq adventure, at first.