Scott Brown elected Massachusetts State Senator

Do you think a woman who had posed nude could ever achieve national political office?

Disaster in Haiti

The only hope long term for Haiti is a deadly disease that only affects jerks. That’s the only hope for a lot of developing nations criminally ruled by jerks. The CIA got close with AIDS, but they didn’t realize back then that butt-sex and being a jerk were not mutually inclusive. Ah well, dreams for the next conservative administration.

‘We are the world’ Haiti relief recording session begins

These people need to be stopped. Send your money to Red Cross.

State of the Union address

I don’t know why people take Obama’s speeches to seriously. I mean, they were never meant to be taken literally. His message is one of hope and change. We can all learn valuable lessons from his speeches but – lol – you can’t apply those ideas directly to policy – that was never the intended purpose of his message.

Toyota Recall

Yeah! Another fat-cat scapegoat! Yeah, let’s get’m! Whoohoo!

Obama getting tough on China for trade agreement infractions

I’m getting tough on my credit cards too. I’m taking a different approach though. I’m paying off the debt – or at least trying.

Underpants bomber now talking, encouraged by parents

Wow Obama administration! Way to go getting the kid to ignore his lawyer’s advice. If only all terrorists had responsible parents. And thanks for telling us about it too. Now all of America knows how great of a job you’re doing protecting us. Hey, so have you gone ahead and put Al Qaeda on the list to receive your FUCKING news letter yet?

Sarah Palin to receive $100k speaking fee for Tea Party Convention

Only a Liberal would find this controversial. She’s a Conservative from Alaska. What do you think she’s going to do with the cash? Buy something with it? You give those people a rifle and a pair of boots – a few years later they’ve got a city with a shipping port. Watch, she’ll invest in some unknown little jackass somewhere and turn another baby-blue state red. Astroturf my ass… U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A

Healthcare reform bill stalled

Ok guys, I get it. You got caught up in all the inaugural excitement. We elected Obama assuming “change” meant a thoughtful approach, but you thought we gave you a mandate to turn the country on its keel. So you went after you’re dreams: single payer, sky-rocketing business costs, and reduced carbon output. I can’t blame anyone for going after their dreams. And hey, at least you go that juicy stimulus!

But those darn Democrats, they got in your way. Single payer was compromised into single payer under a different name – then into a public option. Then even that was compromised – first into some fancy long winded name coined by Pelosi that essentially meant public option, and finally, a year later, into nothing more than a list new regulations – more similar to the Republican alternative to Hillary Care than the brilliant progressive stride we were all assuming would slide through. (Eh, regardless of the naïve math and unfunded state Medicaid mandates) And to add insult to injury, you have to buy some of those Dem votes too.

And darn-it – you could have passed it. Hell, you could have passed a bill covering sea lions FFS. I know you’d like to blame the Republicans, but shit man – you knew you had all the power and that’s how you wrote the bill. No Republican could have voted for that thing any more than you guys could all climb on board with invading Iraq! Or – wait. You got tricked on that one – hu? Well, you know what I mean. You can’t blame the dog you’re walking when you walk into a pole – even if he was enthusiastic about it.

So the question is: What now. Indeed, this bill is shot to shit. Stack that monstrosity on the back of the toilet in the staff bathroom. But what now? Should you pole-vault over the wall with Pelosi? Should you try to come to some reasonable consensus with a few reasonable Republicans? Should you keep this unorganized circus with your ring leader off in his own ring singing his poems?

I’m not sure what you should do. I’d like to see some actual reform though.

Congress to cut funding for KSM trial in NY

Every time anyone asks Obama or anyone in his admin a question about trying KSM in civilian court, they duck the question and assure us he’ll be convicted and executed. So if this is just going to be a $1 billion show trial – why not just “have the trial” (wink-wink)? You know – take a few days off, “have the trial,” print up some transcripts and stuff, execute the bastard, and use the $1 billion on some new Predator drones or something.

Don’t ask don’t tell – once again up for debate

What part of “don’t ask don’t tell” is so hard to understand?

The big difference between an unmanned and manned aircraft is SA (Situational Awareness). SA is the difference between a pilot and an expert pilot. It’s what wins air combat engagements, wastes AA missiles, and has airliners ditching in the Hudson instead of crash landing fully fueled downtown.

Maybe one day we will be able to transfer so much data between a ground base and an aircraft that a pilot will get the same or better information in a simulation terminal as he would in a cockpit. But that day is a long way’s off, so certain jobs require pilots.

One of those jobs is air supremacy. Our whole military machine currently assumes we’ll have full air supremacy. And that is one of the roles of the F22. Of course, some argue that we don’t need the F22 because – “We always try to fight the last war” – the last war in their assumption being the cold war. Of course, that’s illogical. They’re assuming the next war will be like the current one – which is a logical equivalence of: “Fighting the last war.”

And no, the F22 isn’t expensive. In training it can take out several F-18s with simple ease. That means two F-22 could kill a whole county’s worth of fighter planes. That’s cheep even for $150 million each. Hell, if each F22 could only counter 3 enemy planes of the most modern design and piloted by world class pilots – it would be breaking even. But it can kill more like – however many missiles it carries.

Over reliance on drones is indeed a problem. But it’s a normal problem during a ‘pacifist’ administration. Clintonwould have relied on drones too, but all he had were Tomahawk missiles. They like Special Forces as well – any way to cause necessary affect without troop commitment.

The main problem with the drone strikes is that they’re messy. While we have Eric Holder over here dancing around – trying to prosecute CIA officers and treating KSM and Fire Britches like bank robbers – we have unmanned death-birds silently and swiftly blowing a building to bits based on an intelligence assessment – terror suspect, family, friends, and all.

Now – to a rational person with all the facts, such a strike is an obvious wise move – tactically – assuming your goal is to kill Al Qaeda leaders. Of course, that’s not our goal. Our ultimate goal is to stop terror attacks. And to the Al Qaeda’s neighbors these random death-birds don’t seem too Hope and Changeful, especially when you’re picking your neighbor and his kids’ smelly caresses out of a pile of building.

And if you talk to “foreign policy experts” like Biden, we need more of this. Hell, we need to just evacuate the place to make the left happy and bomb the shit out of whatever from our carrier groups. And I saywhatever because that’s what we’d be hitting. We’d be flying our drones around, looking at a village all day, making decisions with piss-poor SA and half-ass intelligence, and pushing buttons.

This would be apposed to our current strategy of protecting the citizenry. This would be apposed to sending some troops in to chat the villagers up – and hopefully convince them that the Taliban and their limping dog Al Qaeda aren’t going to win.

Of course I’m not suggesting we send troops in rather than use the drones in the areas we’re currently striking. I’m just pointing out how incompetent leadership (the kind you get from democracies) can takeover reliance to an obnoxious magnitude. What I am also suggesting is that Obama get Holder on a leash – along with his other dogs – and keep them from chomping their bellies full in the CIA’s food and litter-box. It’s fucking discussing – seriously.

More plainly, the CIA and intelligence efforts in general are our only hope of thwarting this world wide network of Pan Islamic militants. So let’s stop the civilian court justice charade and treat terror suspects first as intelligence sources. Once the experts spend a few weeks wringing them out Obama can go ahead and convict them and apply the death penalty to them with a fair and public civil trial – lol.  Just kidding. We don’t want to blow our intelligence sources and assets so the trial sure as shit can’t be public – nor should it be civilian. Obama can convict and kill all the terror suspects all he wants with military tribunals.

And let’s stop harassing the CIA for trying to stop what everyone though were certain follow-up attacks. BTW – CIA – about that double-agent that made you look like a bitch: Hey, you missed that one. But you’re keeping us alive down here so keep up the good work.

Anyway, from what I hear the attitude from upper leadership is counterproductive, from the CIA down to airport security. Since the Obama brigade took over, it’s been: Go ahead and take a risk following up that lead. But God help your racist bigoted unemployed and possibly prosecuted ass if you’re wrong. So go ahead, make a stink about the Islamic army psychologist. Yeah, add that black Muslim out of Yemin to the Evil-Bush Fascist thoughtless-American no-fly list.

With regard to the terror tactics being used against us, the thing America isn’t short of is justice. We’re arguing that slapping is torture ffs! What we’re lacking is a robust and highly motivated can-do intelligence community. And who can blame the intelligence community for being sheepish. They’re vilified by the Left and the Left is in charge and trying to prosecute some of their finest.

What we’re lacking are enough guys on the ground in and around Afghanistan and Pakistan growing beards, speaking Farsi, and sipping the awful mint tea – likewise the Arabian Peninsula, Africa, and all else. We don’t need more bureaucracy. America is for some reason blessed with individuals who are willing to live and breath the deadly and thankless job of intelligence. They don’t need President this or Senator that deciding to institute a new parade of appointee lead stupidity to help them out.

People like to compare Obama to Lincoln for some reason. Here’s a good exercise though: How do you think – Dr. Dove especially – Obama would have handled the southern states succession and acquisition of US forts in southern territory?

He would probably have fought a war. Here’s a better question: How would Obama have handled Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11? He probably wouldn’t have done the right thing by making Iraq the top priority, while leaving Afghanistan to the dogs. Damn, he sure is a bad president.

Are you sure Dr. Dove?  I remember you commending Bush on taking the month or so he took figuring before Crippling the Taliban in Afghanistan. I remember you comparing it to the day-after Tomahawk strikes good old Billy used to pull – the type that had the crazy Muslims calling it a distraction from Monica. I doubt Obama would have even sent SF like Billy used to do.
And would Obama have pushed for something like the Patriot Act, you know, the thing that has been allowing us the intell that has stopped the post 9-11 attacks, like the Sears Tower that we know of, and the intel we didn’t use about the Fort Hood shooter?

And I agree. Obama wouldn’t have attacked Iraq. Sadam would still be jerking him around like a gullible nephew – like Iran and N Korea are. Instead of the world seeing a dictator pulled out of a rat hole for not complying with the national community, they’d see what they are seeing now, an impotent UN and a polite and likable US President they can ignore and go about their Nuclear aims. You know, like Iran is.

But what about this? What if Bush was correct? What if Iraq was as strong as it looked and a few years from having nukes? How would your man have prevented that? Or would he have? And will he with Iran or N Korea? Or does that even matter in this post-racial society where everything comes down to race – lol?

I think Bush did well to take time before going into Afghanistan. The initial attack on the Taliban was brilliant. The problem was Rumsfeld thought we only needed a handful of soldiers and CIA after the initial assault, and Bush granted him his wish. The assessment was totally wrong, and allowed Afghanistan to become the fiasco it is today.

Iraq was a horrible idea. The post-war planning was even worse. Iraq was no more of a threat than half a dozen other countries, and we didn’t go attacking them.

We took over Iraq to establish a military base in one of the most oil-rich places on earth. There is no other reason. The weapons of mass destruction fear was smoke and mirrors. The intelligence was cooked. The administration pressured the CIA to cook it.

I think your second idea is right on. There is no way a modern war could turn a profit on the short term. However, with China and India growing, they are going to need energy. Iraq is a great place to find it. I think the administration was afraid our new growing competitors would go after the resources in Iraq in a way we couldn’t (i.e becoming allies with Iraq/Saddam Hussein). Bush and Cheney saw that as bad. They needed to beat China to the punch, and saw war as the best means to do so.

I have trouble with that. Maybe it’s because I’m a hippy, and I don’t think economic gain is moral justification for taking over a sovereign country, even if the leader is an evil guy.

I just want honestly about the whole thing. We didn’t go in because of links with Al Qaeda, WMDs, or freedom fries. We went in to secure an important natural resource for ourselves. We should be discussing if that was morally right or wrong. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

I’m with Obama. An alternate energy source that we could produce here (and make jobs for our people) is a much better alternative to military action in our nascent global competition with China. There is a way. We just need to find it.

I know the Cowboy image the Left likes to propagate. And I understand the version of history you guys like to remember. But you haven’t answered any of my questions. Are you using a debate tactic and know you can’t answer any national defense questions about Obama without leaving him lacking?

Are you really trying to say Obama not only would have sent troops to Afghanistan, but he would have sent manymore than Rumsfeld thought was necessary?

Are you trying to say Obama would have listened more closely to the Generals, contrary to his current actions?

And are you really sticking to the Cooked-Books conspiracy theory??? Just in case, let’s focus on the known-knows. Assuming, as we all did in 2001, we suspected Sadam of having WMD. He wouldn’t allow inspections. Without hindsight, and without imaginary theories, and without assuming Obama has actual god-like powers – would Obama have threatened military force then? And after Sadam continued to evade inspections would Obama have followed up on that threat?

And what about the legislation the Cowboy congress passed, the Patriot Act, which gave us the intel we used to stop numerous terror attacks in the past 8 year? You know sure as shit that wouldn’t have happened.

And here’s another one: Would Obama have been elected for a second term in 2004? Assuming he followed the policies he advocated during his campaign and acted the way he’s acting now, we wouldn’t have had the intel to stop the attacks. So we would have seen at least one more major attack and who knows how many small ones in his first term.

Debate tactics are for morons who can’t think. I like to think I don’t belong in that category.

In the world of if and buts and candy and nuts, I don’t know what Obama would have done. I just think it would have been done in a less reckless way. In the current situation in Afghanistan, I think he’ll listen to his generals and increase troop numbers. We’re going to lose otherwise. We’ll all find out tomorrow.

Regarding the “cooked books conspiracy theory.” It isn’t a conspiracy theory. That the Bush administration pressured to CIA to find evidence that Saddam had WMDs is well documented fact. Why they did it is more of a question.

Holy shit Dr. Dove. Don’t you realize how bias you are being? You’re willing to look so deep and thirst for a suitable truth from Bush’s actions. But you’ll take Obama’s actions at face value – many of which are contrary to his campaign promises. You see no motive behind health reform besides giving needy people healthcare – even though it’s not reform, is more representative of a takeover, and is being written in the opposite on-CSPAN bipartisan way Obama promised? And do you see cap’n trade as a sincere effort to control the earth’s temperature – even though it will increase carbon release and is really nothing more than a complicated tax on energy with a market the government would have control of?

Remember when I asked you about the Fort Hood shooting? Remember your bias answer, the one fitting this world view you’ve chosen? How did that work out? That fucker wasn’t even counseling Vets. He was counseling soldiers before they went over. The military accepted his worthless ass in his lat 20’s or early 30’s – giving his a second chance at life – and gave him a world class education. And he decided to give Jihad a try to thank them. One of the initial conclusions was right. Mine was partially right. Your’s was totally wrong!

Hey, if it was a Christian doing Crusade would you have had the same initial opinion, or would you have brought up how religion can help a man to overcome empathy?

And as for Iraq, we were worried about Sadan having WMDs even during the first Gulf war – Kuwait. And as far as response goes, bush was following the policy Bill Clinton advocated during his presidency. So let’s not act like we’re stupid. Sadam was doing everything he could to get nukes. He used WMD on his own people. Stay out of the conspiracy drawer full of fake moon landings and Bush-planned 9-11.

Unless you think – maybe – Bush thought there were WMD and the CIA just wasn’t magical enough to find the evidence glaring and clear.

This isn’t an if’s and but’s. This is serious. You’re under a delusion about Obama doing everything, no matter what it is, in a better way, whatever that is. It’s the blissful poetry he sold you guys with.

It’s perfectly honest and logical to study how different leaders would have dealt with different past issues – based on their philosophies and motivations – in order to predict how they will hand current issues and future issues. And in this case it’s not ambiguous. Obama has discussed these vary past issues and how he would have handled them.

I imagine he’ll ‘listen’ to our Generals as well. Of course, that depends on your definition of ‘listen.’ Do you think he’ll actually send the 40k the Generals say is NEEDED to not LOSE? Because you seem to assume Obama is staying with the strategy he set out months ago – one that includes securing peace and freedom in Afghanistan.

What happens when he hedges the bet, compromises, and only half-measures the troops number? Because that’s what I think he’ll do – just my prediction, based on his past actions. I think he’d order withdraw if he hadn’t politically painted himself in a corner.

And if you don’t want to be listed in the moron category, answer questions when posed, and don’t use debate tactics.

I think we should give up talking politics for a year or so. Our viewpoints are incongruous. You interpret the world through a lens that thinks conservative thinking is right and liberal thinking is wrong, and I’m just trying not to lose my faith in humanity. Our opinions reflect our viewpoints and goals. Case in point, regarding the Fort Hood guy, I think the evidence clearing indicates the guy snapped. He acted alone, and conflict between his obligation as a soldier and his religious affiliation helped snap him. Jihad can only be used loosely to describe what he did. I think I was right, and you two were wrong. I think the evidence supports my initial instincts.

I support Obama because he’s trying foster a world where nations cooperate to achieve a common good. I refuse to become cynical.

The second argument is valid. Bush and Cheney were both from industries with business models 50+ years long. So they certainly would have seen our lack of influence in the ME as a threat to our energy security.

Of course, that would only be a bonus motivation. Anyone making business plans 50 years long knows that it’s more likely you’re assumption will be wrong – things change a lot. Who knows what the ME would be in 50 years, except that we will need oil from there.

The fact is, we were going to have to fight Sadam again eventually. He was far too destabilizing of a character. Had there been a reasonable post-war strategy we wouldn’t be discussing it. Iraq would be a shining example of productive American intervention as I believe it will soon, assuming Liberals don’t write ALL the history books.

As for the original question about predicting Obama’s actions, assuming the intel was accurate and Sadam did have WMD, what then? Or, in reality as he didn’t, would he now if Obama was President instead of Bush?

And by the way, 2 guns remember. Two guns. That’s what I’d do if I were planning a terror attack. The last thing you’d want is to only have one damn gun in a war for your Lord and have Satan cause a malfunction leaving your victims properly matched to you.

Listen, Mr. President. You’ve been spending a lot of time in the past six months or so defending yourself. Now, it’s understandable, I’m sure you’re not just overly emotional. You’re a smart guy. I keep thinking back to your book – The Audacity of Hope – and trying to remember a passage that might explain your borderline over-reactions. I seem to remember something about taking criticism head-on perhaps? I can’t be sure.

Here is the trouble though: First, you bring up your predecessor all the time.That’s just plain getting old. I know – you got into office bashing everything about the man – but you’re the man now. So let’s have just a little more class could we?

Second, you’re reaction to criticism is coming off arrogant and dismissive. I’ve seen this displayed in two different styles. One style is the humorous know-it-all, “What do you think stimulus is?” reaction. Sure, the press laughed along with you. But for many of us – we don’t like you laughing at our real concerns. Some of us do understand economics enough to know what stimulus is and see a lot of stimulus dollars being wasted.

Your other style is more dismissive. I’ve seen it come out when you bring up specific comments people have made, “this could be his Waterloo” or “we need to break him”. Hey, I know how specific comments can get under your skin – but seriously man, you’re the one putting them in the news.

I know it’s an adjustment. You’ve gone a long time as a politician with virtually no criticism. It says good things for our country, but I think it’s spoiled you. The fact is – everyone in your place gets loads of criticism. It’s not just the fact that you’re attempting to make broad sweeping changes to every aspect of our lives, or that you’re a Democrat. The president gets criticized – it’s the American way! You remember the days before you’re inauguration don’t you? Hell Barack, every move you made was a partisan move against the Republicans. You remember voting against all those health care reform ideas back then don’t you – or “present” – or whatever?

You know what it’s like being in the minority party. You remember how it was when your constituents were scared out of their minds Bush was going to go to war with every dictator and privatize every inefficient program. Well that’s how it is now for your opposition. They have people back home buying record numbers of guns because they think you’ll kill the 2^nd Amendment. They see you buying majority control in auto companies and trying to take over medical insurance. And they’re worried you’re a hippy apologist who will leave the back door open for terrorist.

So yeah, they are going to try to stop you now. A large segment of our society wants you to fail – and that’s no more unpatriotic than you wanting Bush’s policies to fail. And let’s be honest. You guys wanted Iraq to burn more than the insurgents just so you could wag you fingers.

So suck it up and stop acting like no one is allowed to hurt your feelings. You had a powerful run of euphoric support, the new trendy thing, Obamania, but your koolaid isn’t going down that easy anymore. The media is even starting to ask questions about policy. You expected Washington to be easier to change. You have a long list of impossible promises. The people that got you here are demanding impossible Left things.

You’ve seen nothing yet.

And while I’ve got your ear: I think you need to tie up some ends. You’ve got some Leftists over there still suffering from the trauma they endured under Bush, and it seems they still think they are at war with anything and everything associated with the Right. This is bad. You’ve had two significant attacks on the CIA since you took office for Peat’s sake. Seriously, you know as well as I what would happen if we let an attack occur – you’ll get chased out of the Whitehouse like a cat out of the kitchen.

We didn’t see the fall of the USSR coming. We missed the Al Qaeda activities in Afghanistan. Why? Because the post Vietnam and Nixon fiasco tore the CIA down, made them afraid to take chances, made the old hands retire, made the young protegés go into marketing – and at least those Liberals waited until after the war to tear up the warriors. We’re still fighting this one. We need those guys. Harming the CIA while we’re trying to stop terrorists is like raising taxes during a recession. You don’t want people looking at either of those issues and saying you were acting stupidly.

Here’s the actual story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8146466.stm BBC lays it out smartly.

Cheney 'ordered CIA to hide plan'

Basically, there was a new CIA project started right after 9-11 that Cheney was somehow associated with – and congress was never informed of the project. It didn’t go anywhere. A few people were trained. It had nothing to do with rendition, interrogation or domestic surveillance. Besides this, Panetta won’t say any more, except that he closed it.

Update!  The program’s planned purpose was to create a special team to find and kill Al Qaeda leaders. It was never initiated though.

This isn’t surprising. It’s hard to guess what the program might have been for. I’m sure there were plenty of ideas floating around. There better have anyway.

Here’s what’s going to happen now. Some congressional Dems will point to the closing of the program as yet another proud act of their glorious movement toward peace and harmony – and yet another example of the evil Bush administration and their savage and destructive lust for power. Reps will defend their side by calling the whole thing a partisan attack with no productive purpose.

The numerous idiots will chime in too – pundits, hosts, and those impressively trained chimpanzees on the View. We’ll get the old arguments around the topics of interrogation, spying, and detaining. Liberals will bring up prosecution – again – but you know… Conservatives will remind everyone how frantic everyone was after 9-11, how we expected more attack, as if that has anything to do with prosecuting crimes in a free society. Liberals will point that out – pompously proclaiming that during the difficult times is when freedom is tested – as if half of theme weren’t cheering on all these “war crimes” with the other half bitching about how more should have already been done.

There are plenty more arguments. You know them, numerous bites of precious logic thrown about in a desperate attempt to bring validity to a philosophical ideal – ignoring the actual logic and fact around the issue. Bottom line is, the CIA is supposed to inform congress about most programs, with few exceptions, so starting the program might have been illegal. It’s another post 9-11 question we need to answer rationally but will instead treat as shot for our partisan cannon.

One fact about this subject Pelosi has recently treated us with lessons on is how congress tends to treat the CIA – or any subservient entity for that matter. I personally wouldn’t blame the CIA for keeping a secret the fact they order two-ply for the shitter. Giving a congressional committee secret information about war programs is like handing someone a tack hammer who likes to slap you all the time.

But seriously, if things had gone a different way, had there been more attack – more serious attacks, had there been numerous sleeper-cells timed to go off for months following, shutting this country down – super secret programs might have given us an edge. That’s what I would have been thinking. They caught us with out pants down. They know how vulnerable we are. And we’ll stay this vulnerable since – well – we are a free society that flips out about our spies keeping secrets from our big-mouths.

And let’s not kid ourselves. Cheney wasn’t gathering power for any purpose other than to adjust to an enemy’s tactics. He wasn’t bending the law for his own corrupt purposes. He was doing his duty to the best of his abilities – and to a man like him, the kind we need when war is to be raged, everything gets stretched, flexed, twisted, or filled.

It’s easy to talk about this in the past tense isn’t it, as though the enemy that killed our people and plans to kill the rest is gone? It’s easy to become complacent when you’re winning, when the enemy is hiding in caves and dying on their land instead of ours. I guess we have to give Cheney some credit for that. So thanks Cheney. You did such a good job of shutting down a world wide terror network that we didn’t even need one of your programs – which may or may not have been illegal. We’ll bring it up to discredit you for our own political gains. We might even try putting you in jail. So thanks. We couldn’t have done it without you.