If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
President Obama has repeatedly promised to fight "the special interests, contractors and entrenched lobbyists" that he says have distorted military priorities and bloated appropriations in the past. In August, he told a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that "if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with a bunch of pork, I will veto it."
Total spending on military earmarks in the Senate declined by only 11 percent from the $3 billion approved by Congress last year.
So a 250 pound hog is "a bunch" of pork--but a 222.5 pound hog ...isn't? FAscinating... Both look like full grown PIGS to me...
The word that best describes President Barack Obama is “finesse,” implying delicate skill, subtlety, and grace—all attributes that former President George W. Bush seemingly lacked. Obama is truly the great finesser: he has finessed his way through life. To exude this quality is to be the opposite of an ideologue – something that comes close to describing Bush. And being the opposite of Bush would seem a good thing, right? Wrong.
The greatest, most obvious mistake that American administrations make is to overcompensate for the flaws of the previous one. The pendulum should come to rest in the middle, not swing to the other extreme. Bush's fundamental mistake was in becoming the anti-Bill Clinton, rather than merely steering away from his predecessor's roughest edges. Clinton had been obsessed with Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking, so rather than focusing on it to a moderate degree, Bush would have none of it at all. Big mistake. Clinton seemingly believed in nothing, so Bush would believe fervently despite the facts. Again, big mistake. Now it looks as though Obama is making a similar blunder. Finesse alone will not get him through the challenges ahead. He's got to become a bit more like Bush. He's got to make clear that he fervently believes in and cares about certain things, and he has to communicate that belief starkly: the challenges of health care, Israeli settlements, and particularly the war in Afghanistan demand no less.
Regarding health care, the more he says, the less impact he seems to have. That's because he's not talking about it in crushing moral terms, which he needs to do. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy will always be remembered for the issue because he cast health care as a basic right, not a privilege. Obama needs to communicate a similar austerity of belief.
As far as Israeli settlements are concerned, Obama will never have as much political capital to spend on the issue as he does now. He is early in his term, and won’t need to slip into campaign mode for years, so he can afford to let his approval ratings dip in response to tough stances on controversial issues. If halting settlement activity requires applying strong pressure on Israel, he has no time to waste. He has to be steadfast and incorrigible: he has to be a bit like Bush. If there truly is a peace settlement to be had, this is no issue that can be finessed.
Then there’s Afghanistan. During the campaign, Obama portrayed Afghanistan as the good war. Whatever his intentions in doing so, that position served to paint Iraq as the bad war, while at the same time liberating Democrats from the calumny that they have been perennially soft on national security. But actually winning the war – as opposed to taking deft stances toward it – will require the same level of stick-to-itiveness and willingness to sustain high degrees of unpopularity that Bush displayed when he doubled-down on his bets in Iraq, and that President Abraham Lincoln displayed during the Civil War.
I am certainly not comparing Bush to Lincoln, or even suggesting that Bush won in Iraq. I am merely suggesting that the stubbornness he displayed in ordering the "surge" is a trait that Obama will need if he truly intends to persevere in Afghanistan.
Obama is actually off to a good start. You are who you appoint, and in appointing the highly regarded Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal to replace Army Gen. David McKiernan, Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have signaled a ruthless desire both for victory and to kill or capture key al-Qaeda figures. But now comes the harder part. McChrystal may well ask for many more troops, and that will be politically difficult for Obama to accommodate. For there is a belief on the homefront, not unfounded, that Afghanistan may be an unwinnable war.
Furthermore, neither Bush nor Obama has ever clearly articulated why America is in Afghanistan in the first place. After 9/11, there was a national consensus to invade, so as to dismantle the Taliban regime that had given refuge to Osama bin Laden, and allowed him to plan the attacks. But rebuilding the country and establishing democracy there was never part of the deal, and one could argue that what America is now engaged in amounts to an extravagant example of mission creep.
I believe there are in fact good reasons why America is in Afghanistan: the future of a stable, nuclearized Pakistan, as well as of Central Asia, depends upon it. It is also important for containing Iran. Defeat would constitute a moral victory for Islamic terrorists worldwide, and would demoralize our own armed forces. Obama needs to make these points and more. To build the semblance of a stable Afghanistan, he needs to be all in on the issue, and to publicly communicate as much. He can't finesse Afghanistan: doing so would mean returning war policy to the same degree of ambivalence it held under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when we were not fully committed to the fight in either Iraq or Afghanistan, even as our troops were being killed daily. Returning to the Rumsfeld era would be a supreme irony for Obama, yet that could be the direction we are headed.
The path before the President is hard. To make his way, he will need to truly commit himself – even if that means taking a cue from his predecessor.
Robert D. Kaplan is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, in Washington, D.C.
__________________
"In the long run, we are all dead." - J.M. Keynes
"The strongest enemy of tyranny is a long memory." - Phil DeBar
"E Clampus Vitus" - YB1
Earmarks and Pork are two entirely different things. Earmarks are specific uses attached to money. Most often, they don't benefit a specific company or purpose. Pork is corporate welfare.
While the defense budget is probably loaded with corporate welfare, using earmarks as a test is faulty logic. Most earmarks are perfectly legitimate. Without them, the executive branch would have no guidance from the legislative branch and could spend the money any way they choose. Obviously, that would be a pretty big mistake.
if his point is "screw finesse and grow a pair" I agree. I would like to see anyone defend, on national TV, spending billions building military equipment the military doesn't even *want*. (as an example). This crap is just so wrong on so many levels--it would be easy to kill--as these expenditure's sole real justification is easily seen as based solely upon increasing some mil-corp's profits --and supported only through lining some politician's pockets...
It's isn't just Obama...it's been every President since the 60's....
Dwight D tried to warn us when he left office:
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
And after reading his entire speech again for the first time in a long while..I forgot how true it was...
if his point is "screw finesse and grow a pair" I agree. I would like to see anyone defend, on national TV, spending billions building military equipment the military doesn't even *want*. (as an example). This crap is just so wrong on so many levels--it would be easy to kill--as these expenditure's sole real justification is easily seen as based solely upon increasing some mil-corp's profits --and supported only through lining some politician's pockets...
Dat's da point.
Hey Kit: Did you ever look into how the first transcontinental railroad was financed? This is nothing new, you know. It isn't right but it's how things get done. You give me your vote on finishing that freeway interchange in Eugene and I'll give you mine for building another frigate in Pascagoula.
Or something like that.
__________________
"In the long run, we are all dead." - J.M. Keynes
"The strongest enemy of tyranny is a long memory." - Phil DeBar
"E Clampus Vitus" - YB1
It's isn't just Obama...it's been every President since the 60's....
Dwight D tried to warn us when he left office:
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
And after reading his entire speech again for the first time in a long while..I forgot how true it was...
Precisely...ergo where is the "change" we voted for? Millions for a dead senator's memorial center (thnx Sen. "Tits-on-a-Boarhog" Kerry) is nothing *but* "business as usual" for these clowns--ad nauseam.
Hey Kit: Did you ever look into how the first transcontinental railroad was financed? This is nothing new, you know. It isn't right but it's how things get done. You give me your vote on finishing that freeway interchange in Eugene and I'll give you mine for building another frigate in Pascagoula.
Or something like that.
That's infrastructure that benefits the economic well-being of the whole country--(although I feel the railroads should have been state-owned, if privately operated, from the get go...) The kind of crap we are talking about here is just "make work" for mil-contractors etc, much (not all) of little benefit to the commons of this nation. Talk about the *bad* side of socialistic enterprise...
Posts: 6,738
Casino Cash: $49215
Sportbike: Mad Max et al
It's not necessarily the military who want these pieces of hardware, upgraded bases, etc. It's the locals who want them. If program xyz is canceled because the military thinks xyz is an ineffective deathtrap, it puts Representative Blorque's constituents out of work. It's the constituents who raise hell, and since they vote, Mr. Blorque listens to them. It's how our republic works. Multiply it by each representative in Congress and you get earmarks, waste, and boondoggles. If it's down by 11%, it's a start.
__________________
Member in good standing of the global elitist agenda
Posts: 8,880
Casino Cash: $48664
Sportbike: Sportcruiser. It's like the American Stig.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 92blkSi
what are they building that no one wants?
Quote:
The bill, however, would add $1.7 billion for an extra destroyer the Defense Department did not request and $2.5 billion for 10 C-17 cargo planes it did not want, at the behest of lawmakers representing the states where those items would be built.
if his point is "screw finesse and grow a pair" I agree. I would like to see anyone defend, on national TV, spending billions building military equipment the military doesn't even *want*. (as an example). This crap is just so wrong on so many levels--it would be easy to kill--as these expenditure's sole real justification is easily seen as based solely upon increasing some mil-corp's profits --and supported only through lining some politician's pockets...
Business as usual: "Earmark" Obama
Linear Mode
