I note that our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder has come out for a drastic revision of the federal minimum sentence laws when it comes to nonviolent drug offenders with no criminal past.
OK.
Maybe we should make drug penalties the same as those suffered by the man who implemented a covert war against the people of Mexico in an effort to discredit the Second Amendment? What kind of sentence is Holder getting for "Fast and Furious"?
Ah, I see . . . .
WLA
Monday, August 12, 2013
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Palestinians Angry! Dog Bites Man! Sun Rises in East! Monday Follows Sunday! Obama Plays Golf!
Slow day, so I read the BBC. Even more so than the NY Times, the once-reputable BBC, the BBC of coded messages to the anti-Nazi resistance, now can be trusted only to provide a glimpse into the oh-so conventional, predictable, and uninteresting leftist mindset which dominates the news media in the West. The Palestinians are angry a headline on the BBC website tells us. They are angry because Israelis are building homes in Jerusalem and the West Bank. If they weren't building them, would the Palestinians be less angry? I wonder.
It's Sunday. I am waiting for my son to come help me move patio furniture into the garage so we can rip up our backyard tomorrow and then pave it over. My wife, the hater of all things nature, the woman who loves her two SUVs, the one who has declared "I will go to the beach when it is paved and all the sharks are dead," has decreed no more grass, bushes, trees, etc., in the Diployard. Paving stones as far as the eye can see! So when dealing with demands to pave an area, I, of course, think of the Middle East.
Let's start with basics. The whole Palestinian homeland bit is a massive scam. Palestinians are Arabs just like the folks in Jordan and Egypt--Arafat was born in Cairo. When the Arab states invaded the nascent state of Israel in 1948, they did not do so for a Palestinian homeland. They just wanted to kill Jews, drive them into the ocean, and eliminate Western influence from the region. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria intended to take the tiny parcel of land allocated to the Jews by the UN and keep it. No Palestinian homeland, no "two state solution," just another "final solution" which would have seen tens-of-thousands of Jews killed, including those born in "Palestine," yes, Jews were also "Palestinians." That's all. Period.
After the Arab states got their clocks cleaned, we began to hear the baying about a Palestine homeland which just so happened to coincide exactly with the boundaries of Israel. Amazing how that happens! Wherever Jews lived, THAT formed part of the Palestinian homeland. Jordan, of course, had the West Bank from 1948 to 1967; at no time was that then considered part of this definition of the "Palestinian" homeland. It was part of Jordan. There were no international cries to free that portion of Palestine from Jordanian occupation. The West Bank became part of the "homeland" only when Israel took it from Jordan in the Six Day War.
We also saw the amazing phenomenon of Palestinian refugees. Arabs displaced by fighting started by Arabs were dumped by Arabs on the tender mercies of the UN. The Arab countries wanted nothing to do with them. The UN being all about programs, of course, created the monstrosities known as Palestinian refugee camps, and established a massive money-sucking bureaucracy to administer them and beg for ever greater amounts of money--most of it from Western countries, including the USA. These camps, really mini versions of Detroit, held tens-of-thousands of people with nothing to do except get free stuff, and, of course, listen to political hacks lecture them about the perfidious Jews and Westerners, and recruit them into violent gangs. Please note that between 1948 and 1967, some one million Jews were expelled from their homes in Arab countries, such as Iraq. There were no UN refuge camps for them; no international bureaucracies set up to protect and "guide" them. No. They moved, and as refugees have done since time immemorial, got on with their lives. I also would note there were no perennial UN programs for the refugees from East Germany. No. West Germany absorbed them into its society and that was that. The same with the Poles and the many other Eastern Europeans displaced by Soviet Communism. No UN programs for them.
That murderous hypocrisy has continued to this day: What is held by the Arabs belongs to the Arabs; what is held by Israel belongs to . . . surprise! . . . the Arabs! When Arab pathologies create a humanitarian mess, the West gets to clean it up. We could expect this nonsense from the corrupt Arab regimes, but it has become a staple of Western leftist thought, as well. We see this in the hysteria over Jewish settlements. It seems that the UN and much of the West have bought the idea that Jews cannot live near Muslims. Areas seen as once Muslim must remain that way forever. That is certainly how Islamists think when, for example, they turn their attention to Spain.
Most interesting, we hear nothing about the million or so Arabs with Israeli citizenship, the freest and most prosperous Arabs in the Middle East. If Jews cannot live among Muslims, should the reverse be true, as well? Should the Israelis kick out the million Arabs in Israel in retaliation for the million Jews kicked out of Arab lands? Maybe the BBC can tell us.
Nothing to see here, move along. Take that Adirondack chair with you.
WLA
It's Sunday. I am waiting for my son to come help me move patio furniture into the garage so we can rip up our backyard tomorrow and then pave it over. My wife, the hater of all things nature, the woman who loves her two SUVs, the one who has declared "I will go to the beach when it is paved and all the sharks are dead," has decreed no more grass, bushes, trees, etc., in the Diployard. Paving stones as far as the eye can see! So when dealing with demands to pave an area, I, of course, think of the Middle East.
Let's start with basics. The whole Palestinian homeland bit is a massive scam. Palestinians are Arabs just like the folks in Jordan and Egypt--Arafat was born in Cairo. When the Arab states invaded the nascent state of Israel in 1948, they did not do so for a Palestinian homeland. They just wanted to kill Jews, drive them into the ocean, and eliminate Western influence from the region. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria intended to take the tiny parcel of land allocated to the Jews by the UN and keep it. No Palestinian homeland, no "two state solution," just another "final solution" which would have seen tens-of-thousands of Jews killed, including those born in "Palestine," yes, Jews were also "Palestinians." That's all. Period.
After the Arab states got their clocks cleaned, we began to hear the baying about a Palestine homeland which just so happened to coincide exactly with the boundaries of Israel. Amazing how that happens! Wherever Jews lived, THAT formed part of the Palestinian homeland. Jordan, of course, had the West Bank from 1948 to 1967; at no time was that then considered part of this definition of the "Palestinian" homeland. It was part of Jordan. There were no international cries to free that portion of Palestine from Jordanian occupation. The West Bank became part of the "homeland" only when Israel took it from Jordan in the Six Day War.
We also saw the amazing phenomenon of Palestinian refugees. Arabs displaced by fighting started by Arabs were dumped by Arabs on the tender mercies of the UN. The Arab countries wanted nothing to do with them. The UN being all about programs, of course, created the monstrosities known as Palestinian refugee camps, and established a massive money-sucking bureaucracy to administer them and beg for ever greater amounts of money--most of it from Western countries, including the USA. These camps, really mini versions of Detroit, held tens-of-thousands of people with nothing to do except get free stuff, and, of course, listen to political hacks lecture them about the perfidious Jews and Westerners, and recruit them into violent gangs. Please note that between 1948 and 1967, some one million Jews were expelled from their homes in Arab countries, such as Iraq. There were no UN refuge camps for them; no international bureaucracies set up to protect and "guide" them. No. They moved, and as refugees have done since time immemorial, got on with their lives. I also would note there were no perennial UN programs for the refugees from East Germany. No. West Germany absorbed them into its society and that was that. The same with the Poles and the many other Eastern Europeans displaced by Soviet Communism. No UN programs for them.
That murderous hypocrisy has continued to this day: What is held by the Arabs belongs to the Arabs; what is held by Israel belongs to . . . surprise! . . . the Arabs! When Arab pathologies create a humanitarian mess, the West gets to clean it up. We could expect this nonsense from the corrupt Arab regimes, but it has become a staple of Western leftist thought, as well. We see this in the hysteria over Jewish settlements. It seems that the UN and much of the West have bought the idea that Jews cannot live near Muslims. Areas seen as once Muslim must remain that way forever. That is certainly how Islamists think when, for example, they turn their attention to Spain.
Most interesting, we hear nothing about the million or so Arabs with Israeli citizenship, the freest and most prosperous Arabs in the Middle East. If Jews cannot live among Muslims, should the reverse be true, as well? Should the Israelis kick out the million Arabs in Israel in retaliation for the million Jews kicked out of Arab lands? Maybe the BBC can tell us.
Nothing to see here, move along. Take that Adirondack chair with you.
WLA
Friday, August 9, 2013
On Oprah and her Attempted $38,000 Purse Buy in Switzerland
I hear she tried to charge the purse to her Race Card; even though it has an unlimited balance, it wasn't accepted in Switzerland.
Ah, Oprah, those days of whine and poses/ laugh and run away/ like a child at play . . .
(With apologies to Henry Mancini and Johnny Mercer)
Ah, Oprah, those days of whine and poses/ laugh and run away/ like a child at play . . .
(With apologies to Henry Mancini and Johnny Mercer)
WLA
Embassy Shutdowns: Brought to You by Lawyers, Politicians, Fearful Bureaucrats . . . Oh, and Al Qaeda, too
Lots of press about the closing of several US and UK embassies in the MidEast. The issue of closing an Embassy or a Consulate for security reasons is a complicated one that involves intel collection and analysis, domestic and foreign politics, coordination with allies, lawyers, fear of Congress and the press, and, of course, just plain ol' wet-finger-in-the wind guesswork. I have had a bit of personal experience with the matter on which to draw, so, I, therefore, decree that my seven readers will read about it. Oh, yes, I will have some nasty things to say about intel leaks, but will never mention the weasel of the steppes. One more thing before getting to the topic: I am very conscious about not revealing classified information or sensitive procedures so some stuff I will have to "mush up" a bit or leave a little vague. I, therefore, ask the forgiveness of State gurus who will read this and say, "Wait a minute! He left out the part where . . .."
Information about a threat to an embassy or other facilities can come from a variety of places and sources. It can come from a local source, such as a friendly host country service, an embassy source, or from a friendly embassy or third country service, usually, in my experience, British or Australian (BTW, Americans do not appreciate that the Aussies are VERY good; they are very under appreciated allies; I loved working with them; no Aussie will ever have to buy his own drink if I am around.) The information can also come from Washington. We might get the raw info, or more usual, we would get an analysis that highlighted the threat. The big issue then becomes how specific we find the threat, and whether we think we can counter it quietly, in the shadows. If, for example, we get information that the bad guys are planning an attack against a specific embassy or other target, get a time frame, maybe some other data that identifies the terrorists, we might keep the information confidential and see if we, perhaps working with the local service, can nip the threat early. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one such incident in my career. The Aussies and we had collected very specific information about a planned attack, the nature of the attack, i.e., a truck bomb, the proposed date of the attack, and even who was going to do it. We tipped off the local service and its specially vetted counter-terror unit, working with US and Aussie help, nabbed the bastards in the midst of putting the final touches on a huge truck bomb. As noted, that is extremely rare.
Most of the time, the threats are vague, something along the lines of "Abdul plans his wedding very soon." We then have a problem. How do we counter that? What can we do to head that off? This sort of vague information also sets bells ringing among the legions of lawyers at State, CIA, DoD, NSC, and all across DC. It also puts the Consular Affairs bureau into a high state of anxiety, as well as the Congressional Relations and Public Affairs people--all terrified of being accused of not disseminating information that could save the life of an American citizen. That leads to the issuance of those fairly worthless "travel advisories" all of you have seen, "The Department of State urges Americans planning on traveling to or residing in Upper Jihadia to exercise great caution and to remain in touch with the nearest US Embassy or consulate . . . " Sort of akin to when your mother would yell as you went out the door with your new bicycle, "Be careful!" These advisories, by the way, often cause great irritation in our relations with Upper Jihadia, as they could cost it tourist dollars and imply that the government of UJ is unable to ensure its own public order. The wording of the advisories is a matter for considerable negotiation within the bureaucracy, and, often, consulted with close allies before being issued. In general, the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and many other Western countries issue almost identical warnings.
If the threat is deemed "imminent" or "fairly specific" that raises the issue of closing those diplomatic facilities seen at greatest risk. We cannot quietly close a diplomatic facility. The State Department is required to inform the American public that the facility is closing due to a credible threat. In even touchier cases, the issue becomes whether to have our official personnel, and perhaps even regular Americans (depending on the nature and scope of the threat), removed from the country and flown back to the US or to a safer place elsewhere. That is a huge and very costly step. It also raises the issue of who, if anybody, remains at the post, and, of course, when and under what conditions you re-open, e.g., do you allow dependents to return? How sure are you of when the threat has abated?
As you can surmise, all this involves a lot of guessing, shooting in the dark. These are not easy matters. What, of course, makes them even more difficult is politics. Are the politicians in DC playing games with the information? Are they steering us to keep a place open by downplaying the threat, e.g., Benghazi, or are they fostering a sense of crisis to distract from something else, perhaps the case these last few days? I don't know.
Turning to some of the information that has come out about the current threat level, I am appalled, absolutely appalled by the apparently deliberate leaking by senior Obamistas of, if true, highly sensitive information, and the methods used to obtain it. That sort of irresponsible leaking can get people killed. It also, presumably, tips off the bad guys as to what we know and how, and can lead them either to switch to other methods of communication or to play games by feeding us bad information. In other words, in a world already filled with dozens of "X" factors, the dopes in the Obama misadministration are pumping more variables into the equation.
The Obama misadministration, despite the denials, has had its "Mission Accomplished" moment. We heard repeatedly that AQ was on its last legs, that we could not continue to fight this endless war on terror, etc. Now--"Suddenly!" as Professor Reynolds would state--AQ is everywhere in the Middle East and Africa, our personnel are fleeing their posts, and our 21st century version of Davy Crockett, the Predator drone, is swatting militants off the parapets.
WLA
Information about a threat to an embassy or other facilities can come from a variety of places and sources. It can come from a local source, such as a friendly host country service, an embassy source, or from a friendly embassy or third country service, usually, in my experience, British or Australian (BTW, Americans do not appreciate that the Aussies are VERY good; they are very under appreciated allies; I loved working with them; no Aussie will ever have to buy his own drink if I am around.) The information can also come from Washington. We might get the raw info, or more usual, we would get an analysis that highlighted the threat. The big issue then becomes how specific we find the threat, and whether we think we can counter it quietly, in the shadows. If, for example, we get information that the bad guys are planning an attack against a specific embassy or other target, get a time frame, maybe some other data that identifies the terrorists, we might keep the information confidential and see if we, perhaps working with the local service, can nip the threat early. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one such incident in my career. The Aussies and we had collected very specific information about a planned attack, the nature of the attack, i.e., a truck bomb, the proposed date of the attack, and even who was going to do it. We tipped off the local service and its specially vetted counter-terror unit, working with US and Aussie help, nabbed the bastards in the midst of putting the final touches on a huge truck bomb. As noted, that is extremely rare.
Most of the time, the threats are vague, something along the lines of "Abdul plans his wedding very soon." We then have a problem. How do we counter that? What can we do to head that off? This sort of vague information also sets bells ringing among the legions of lawyers at State, CIA, DoD, NSC, and all across DC. It also puts the Consular Affairs bureau into a high state of anxiety, as well as the Congressional Relations and Public Affairs people--all terrified of being accused of not disseminating information that could save the life of an American citizen. That leads to the issuance of those fairly worthless "travel advisories" all of you have seen, "The Department of State urges Americans planning on traveling to or residing in Upper Jihadia to exercise great caution and to remain in touch with the nearest US Embassy or consulate . . . " Sort of akin to when your mother would yell as you went out the door with your new bicycle, "Be careful!" These advisories, by the way, often cause great irritation in our relations with Upper Jihadia, as they could cost it tourist dollars and imply that the government of UJ is unable to ensure its own public order. The wording of the advisories is a matter for considerable negotiation within the bureaucracy, and, often, consulted with close allies before being issued. In general, the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and many other Western countries issue almost identical warnings.
If the threat is deemed "imminent" or "fairly specific" that raises the issue of closing those diplomatic facilities seen at greatest risk. We cannot quietly close a diplomatic facility. The State Department is required to inform the American public that the facility is closing due to a credible threat. In even touchier cases, the issue becomes whether to have our official personnel, and perhaps even regular Americans (depending on the nature and scope of the threat), removed from the country and flown back to the US or to a safer place elsewhere. That is a huge and very costly step. It also raises the issue of who, if anybody, remains at the post, and, of course, when and under what conditions you re-open, e.g., do you allow dependents to return? How sure are you of when the threat has abated?
As you can surmise, all this involves a lot of guessing, shooting in the dark. These are not easy matters. What, of course, makes them even more difficult is politics. Are the politicians in DC playing games with the information? Are they steering us to keep a place open by downplaying the threat, e.g., Benghazi, or are they fostering a sense of crisis to distract from something else, perhaps the case these last few days? I don't know.
Turning to some of the information that has come out about the current threat level, I am appalled, absolutely appalled by the apparently deliberate leaking by senior Obamistas of, if true, highly sensitive information, and the methods used to obtain it. That sort of irresponsible leaking can get people killed. It also, presumably, tips off the bad guys as to what we know and how, and can lead them either to switch to other methods of communication or to play games by feeding us bad information. In other words, in a world already filled with dozens of "X" factors, the dopes in the Obama misadministration are pumping more variables into the equation.
The Obama misadministration, despite the denials, has had its "Mission Accomplished" moment. We heard repeatedly that AQ was on its last legs, that we could not continue to fight this endless war on terror, etc. Now--"Suddenly!" as Professor Reynolds would state--AQ is everywhere in the Middle East and Africa, our personnel are fleeing their posts, and our 21st century version of Davy Crockett, the Predator drone, is swatting militants off the parapets.
 |
| Early American drone at work |
WLA
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Hiroshima: A Real Decision
My great retirement-from-retirement plan not having worked out, I was idly surfing the net reading about the apparent and "surprising" "resurgence" of AQ (will post more on that), when I re-encountered Joe Biden's fawning adoration of Obama's decision on the Osama take down. He labelled Obama's decision, which he took after thinking it over for 16 hours, something like the greatest decision ever or at least the most "audacious plan " in the last 500 years. Right, Joe, right. The Greatest and Most Audacious Plan Since, Since, Since . . . . Well, EVER!
Given today's date, August 6, I couldn't help but think about another decision made by a US president: the decision to go ahead with the atomic bombing of Japan.
The plain-speaking, non-charismatic Truman, a little known Senator and party hack who by almost any political calculus never would have been President, proved a smart, tough and decisive man. He came to power as the war in Europe was wrapping up, but the war in the Pacific was dragging on. The US Navy--including the most successful submarine warfare campaign in history--and the Marines had cut-off Japan from the outside world; the US Army Air Force was taking Japan's cities apart, block by block; and while Japan could not hope to attain anything approaching a victory, it still seemed highly unlikely, almost impossible to imagine the Japanese surrendering without an Allied invasion of the home islands.
Allied planners estimated that the invasion of Japan, "Operation Downfall," would produce AT LEAST 1.2 million American casualties, about one-fourth in deaths; unofficial Navy estimates, which extrapolated from the casualty rates on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, put American losses considerably higher, with perhaps 800,000 dead--and that did not include the deaths of British, Australian, and other allied forces that would participate in the invasion. Japanese losses were estimated at ten to twelve million; American military leaders were pushing for the use of gas against the Japanese as a means to reduce the Allied body count. There, of course, was no guarantee that the invasion would succeed, and no one could tell how long the battle would go on in Japan--maybe months, maybe years. The legacy would be a horrid one, indeed.
Truman decided to try to avoid all that horror, and gave the green light to the dropping of the atomic bomb. The risks were enormous. The bombs, which had never been tested as bombs, might fail; we only had enough material for at most three; and, of course,the Japanese might still refuse to surrender even after two or three such atomic attacks.
The first bomb, of course, was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and the second on Nagasaki three days later, killing outright a total of something over 100,000 persons. Japan surrendered soon after, but not before some die-hard officers sought to launch a coup to prevent the Emperor from announcing the surrender. In the brutal arithmetic of war, that was a cheap price to pay for an end to the conflict.
Now that was a decision. Obama cannot hold a candle to that one.
WLA
Given today's date, August 6, I couldn't help but think about another decision made by a US president: the decision to go ahead with the atomic bombing of Japan.
The plain-speaking, non-charismatic Truman, a little known Senator and party hack who by almost any political calculus never would have been President, proved a smart, tough and decisive man. He came to power as the war in Europe was wrapping up, but the war in the Pacific was dragging on. The US Navy--including the most successful submarine warfare campaign in history--and the Marines had cut-off Japan from the outside world; the US Army Air Force was taking Japan's cities apart, block by block; and while Japan could not hope to attain anything approaching a victory, it still seemed highly unlikely, almost impossible to imagine the Japanese surrendering without an Allied invasion of the home islands.
Allied planners estimated that the invasion of Japan, "Operation Downfall," would produce AT LEAST 1.2 million American casualties, about one-fourth in deaths; unofficial Navy estimates, which extrapolated from the casualty rates on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, put American losses considerably higher, with perhaps 800,000 dead--and that did not include the deaths of British, Australian, and other allied forces that would participate in the invasion. Japanese losses were estimated at ten to twelve million; American military leaders were pushing for the use of gas against the Japanese as a means to reduce the Allied body count. There, of course, was no guarantee that the invasion would succeed, and no one could tell how long the battle would go on in Japan--maybe months, maybe years. The legacy would be a horrid one, indeed.
Truman decided to try to avoid all that horror, and gave the green light to the dropping of the atomic bomb. The risks were enormous. The bombs, which had never been tested as bombs, might fail; we only had enough material for at most three; and, of course,the Japanese might still refuse to surrender even after two or three such atomic attacks.
The first bomb, of course, was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and the second on Nagasaki three days later, killing outright a total of something over 100,000 persons. Japan surrendered soon after, but not before some die-hard officers sought to launch a coup to prevent the Emperor from announcing the surrender. In the brutal arithmetic of war, that was a cheap price to pay for an end to the conflict.
Now that was a decision. Obama cannot hold a candle to that one.
WLA
The Diplomad Will Be No More
I am giving it up. No more Diplomad. No more working for nothing except insults.
I am taking this great offer which came by email this morning. I blacked out the email address and phone number so one of you seven readers won't beat me to this offer.
"Dear Friend, I am happy to inform you about my success in getting those funds transferred under the cooperation of a new partner from India though I tried my best to involve you in the business but God decided the whole situations. Presently I am in India for investment projects with my own share of the total sum. Meanwhile, I didn't forget your past efforts and attempts to assist me in transferring those funds despite that it failed some how. Now contact my secretary in Burkina Faso, her name is Mariam Bello. On her email address (xxxxxx) and phone number xxxxxxx.
Ask her to send you the cheque of $400,000.00 which I kept for your compensation for all the past efforts and attempts to assist me in this matter. Feel free to contact her and instruct her where to send the amount to you without any further delay. . . "
I think it's legitimate. It does not mention Nigeria, so it has to be. I mean the authorities in Burkina Faso would not let a scam run, right?
Yep, that's it. I am gonna be rich. I am sending them my bank and credit card info so they can deposit my $400,000.
Bye.
WLA
I am taking this great offer which came by email this morning. I blacked out the email address and phone number so one of you seven readers won't beat me to this offer.
"Dear Friend, I am happy to inform you about my success in getting those funds transferred under the cooperation of a new partner from India though I tried my best to involve you in the business but God decided the whole situations. Presently I am in India for investment projects with my own share of the total sum. Meanwhile, I didn't forget your past efforts and attempts to assist me in transferring those funds despite that it failed some how. Now contact my secretary in Burkina Faso, her name is Mariam Bello. On her email address (xxxxxx) and phone number xxxxxxx.
Ask her to send you the cheque of $400,000.00 which I kept for your compensation for all the past efforts and attempts to assist me in this matter. Feel free to contact her and instruct her where to send the amount to you without any further delay. . . "
I think it's legitimate. It does not mention Nigeria, so it has to be. I mean the authorities in Burkina Faso would not let a scam run, right?
Yep, that's it. I am gonna be rich. I am sending them my bank and credit card info so they can deposit my $400,000.
Bye.
WLA
Monday, August 5, 2013
Lord Snowden of Siberia, One Last Word (With an UPDATE)
I don't like writing about Snowden or the goofy-looking Manning. As I have said before, I consider both treasonous weasels. I must write something, however, given the puzzling argument of many folks, including conservatives and friends, who consider them, especially Snowden, some sort of heroic whistleblower figures, or Avengers for Justice and Freedom. I cannot agree with that; let me explain, and then will promise to try to avoid this topic.
Let's focus on Snowden, as the court already has dealt with Manning.
All seven readers of this blog know of my great distaste for the Obama misadministration. In my view, Obama is the worst President in my sixty years on earth, and very possibly in American history--certainly, at least, since the Presidency and the Federal government mattered to everyday Americans. If, furthermore, you ask me who has caused more damage to America, Snowden or Obama, I answer, without hesitation, "Obama." I also concede willingly that our illustrious Secretary of State, John "Xmas in Cambodia" Kerry, is not exactly well-qualified to criticize others for treasonous acts--he has quite a history, himself, and, frankly, should not be SecState.
In the interest of full disclosure, I also have a personal gripe with this misadministration. The thin-skinned dopey thugs who run it terminated my career because I could not go along with their bovine manure on things such as immigration--they wanted me to give a speech at the OAS criticizing Arizona, I refused--the crisis in Honduras, Fast and Furious, and their personnel policy which was heavily race- and gender-based, and which put totally unqualified hacks into key positions. I wrote a couple of "dissent" messages, and had my run-ins with the Obamabots. I found the Obamista foreign policy to be a disaster. I had access to highly classified materials, as I did throughout my career, but it NEVER occurred to me to leak this information to journalists, much less go run off to some foreign power with it. My oath to protect that information was my oath to protect that information. I knew of officers, including friends, who blew the whistle, but they did it within the system. They suffered for it, but they could look in the mirror and not see a weasel staring back. When I couldn't stand being around the Obamabots anymore, I left--and still won't give up the info I have.
Snowden apparently had a long-term plan to collect massive amounts of classified data to use against the NSA and the USA; he, it seems, worked this plan in league with a reporter for The World's Stupidest Newspaper, The Guardian, and with the highly anti-American crowd at WikiLeaks. He then fled to China and onward to Russia. This man is not a whistleblower or some naive well-intentioned champion for civil and human rights. This man is something else, so it would appear, as it seems he has given up perfectly legitimate collection efforts by the US and the UK against Chinese and Russian targets. The one area of doubt I will concede is that we have gotten most of our information from The World's Stupidest Newspaper, and who knows if there is more smoke than fire. That said, however, there must be considerable fire or the Russians likely would not have let him stay. Despite nearly three-quarters of a century of Communism, the Russians remain sharp and talented horse traders.
If Snowden had a complaint about the way the NSA and the other intel organizations were behaving, he had legal ways to make that clear. Even under the Obama-Holder regime, we still have lawyers with security clearances who specialize in these sorts of cases. There are powerful Senators and Representatives to whom he could have appealed. He would have had a rough time, no doubt, but what does he think the rest of his life looks like now?
I have written about the damage done by Obama to America, some of it likely permanent. I should add that one of the greatest bits of damage has been to foster the cynicism that Americans have about their government; simply put, Obama cannot be believed even if he happens to tell the truth about something. He has such a record of deception and fabrication that he has done enormous harm to the relationship between the people and their government. I see people thinking that AQ is not real, that Islamic terrorism is a sham, etc. That is a horrid development, and can be chalked up to this misadministration and its lies. It is a development that will cost lives.
UPDATE: Judging from some of the comments and reactions elsewhere, there seems to be lots of misunderstanding of what I was trying to state. I need to write more gooder.
The issue I was raising in this post was my disagreement with the hero worship by many of Snowden, a man who never should have had a security clearance. Snowden is not a crusader for the Constitution or for civil rights in the US. He ran to China and Russia with highly classified info about legitimate collection efforts overseas. He planned this carefully with the leftist Guardian and the leftist Wikileaks. In this regard, he, apparently, was no better than some spy or turncoat working for a foreign power against the US.
This is a separate issue from whether what the NSA is doing within the US is right or wrong, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional. This is a separate issue from whether what Obama is doing is good or bad--you know my position on that. This is about Snowden; he is a weasel.
WLA
Let's focus on Snowden, as the court already has dealt with Manning.
All seven readers of this blog know of my great distaste for the Obama misadministration. In my view, Obama is the worst President in my sixty years on earth, and very possibly in American history--certainly, at least, since the Presidency and the Federal government mattered to everyday Americans. If, furthermore, you ask me who has caused more damage to America, Snowden or Obama, I answer, without hesitation, "Obama." I also concede willingly that our illustrious Secretary of State, John "Xmas in Cambodia" Kerry, is not exactly well-qualified to criticize others for treasonous acts--he has quite a history, himself, and, frankly, should not be SecState.
In the interest of full disclosure, I also have a personal gripe with this misadministration. The thin-skinned dopey thugs who run it terminated my career because I could not go along with their bovine manure on things such as immigration--they wanted me to give a speech at the OAS criticizing Arizona, I refused--the crisis in Honduras, Fast and Furious, and their personnel policy which was heavily race- and gender-based, and which put totally unqualified hacks into key positions. I wrote a couple of "dissent" messages, and had my run-ins with the Obamabots. I found the Obamista foreign policy to be a disaster. I had access to highly classified materials, as I did throughout my career, but it NEVER occurred to me to leak this information to journalists, much less go run off to some foreign power with it. My oath to protect that information was my oath to protect that information. I knew of officers, including friends, who blew the whistle, but they did it within the system. They suffered for it, but they could look in the mirror and not see a weasel staring back. When I couldn't stand being around the Obamabots anymore, I left--and still won't give up the info I have.
On many comment boards and elsewhere, I see people, including friends, seeking to justify or excuse what Snowden apparently has done by pointing to what the Obama misadministration clearly has done, e.g., Fast and Furious, political use of the IRS, voter fraud, disastrous economic and energy policies, bailout of the UAW, Obamacare, Benghazi cover-up, the totally inept handling of our foreign policy especially in the Mideast and Latin America, and a daily barrage of lies and distortions. My argument is that, by all means, focus on the perfidious and loathsome behavior of the Obamistas, but do not use it to excuse the perfidious and loathsome nature of what Snowden reportedly has done. One, for example, could criticize George W. Bush without making John Walker Lindh into a hero. One could disagree with US and UK Cold War policies without making the Rosenbergs, Agee, or Philby into heroes. One could dislike FDR's New Deal or Churchill's domestic and imperial policies, without praising Axis Sally, Ezra Pound, or Lord Haw-Haw. I am very pro-Israel, but think Jonathan Pollard should sit in prison for passing information to Israel on what we knew about Syria's air defenses.
Snowden apparently had a long-term plan to collect massive amounts of classified data to use against the NSA and the USA; he, it seems, worked this plan in league with a reporter for The World's Stupidest Newspaper, The Guardian, and with the highly anti-American crowd at WikiLeaks. He then fled to China and onward to Russia. This man is not a whistleblower or some naive well-intentioned champion for civil and human rights. This man is something else, so it would appear, as it seems he has given up perfectly legitimate collection efforts by the US and the UK against Chinese and Russian targets. The one area of doubt I will concede is that we have gotten most of our information from The World's Stupidest Newspaper, and who knows if there is more smoke than fire. That said, however, there must be considerable fire or the Russians likely would not have let him stay. Despite nearly three-quarters of a century of Communism, the Russians remain sharp and talented horse traders.
If Snowden had a complaint about the way the NSA and the other intel organizations were behaving, he had legal ways to make that clear. Even under the Obama-Holder regime, we still have lawyers with security clearances who specialize in these sorts of cases. There are powerful Senators and Representatives to whom he could have appealed. He would have had a rough time, no doubt, but what does he think the rest of his life looks like now?
I have written about the damage done by Obama to America, some of it likely permanent. I should add that one of the greatest bits of damage has been to foster the cynicism that Americans have about their government; simply put, Obama cannot be believed even if he happens to tell the truth about something. He has such a record of deception and fabrication that he has done enormous harm to the relationship between the people and their government. I see people thinking that AQ is not real, that Islamic terrorism is a sham, etc. That is a horrid development, and can be chalked up to this misadministration and its lies. It is a development that will cost lives.
UPDATE: Judging from some of the comments and reactions elsewhere, there seems to be lots of misunderstanding of what I was trying to state. I need to write more gooder.
The issue I was raising in this post was my disagreement with the hero worship by many of Snowden, a man who never should have had a security clearance. Snowden is not a crusader for the Constitution or for civil rights in the US. He ran to China and Russia with highly classified info about legitimate collection efforts overseas. He planned this carefully with the leftist Guardian and the leftist Wikileaks. In this regard, he, apparently, was no better than some spy or turncoat working for a foreign power against the US.
This is a separate issue from whether what the NSA is doing within the US is right or wrong, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional. This is a separate issue from whether what Obama is doing is good or bad--you know my position on that. This is about Snowden; he is a weasel.
WLA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)