The Cool Blue Blog

What change looks like

Now that Senator Obama has become President-Elect Obama, some encouraging things have come to light.

Last Thursday the President-Elect got his first Presidential-level Intelligence briefing.

This must have been a sobering experience because three days later the Wall Street Journal reported that

President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say...

Mr. Obama is being advised largely by a group of intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration. They say he is likely to fill key intelligence posts with pragmatists.

Perhaps, it will turn out that the Constitution destroying Bush Administration hasn't done so much Constitution destroying after all.

You know it's one thing to attack Power from the outside, but once you are the one responsible for the safety of US citizens, the whole game changes. Like the situation at Guantanamo I mentioned earlier: Yeah you can close Gitmo, but the underlying problem doesn't disappear. You still have to deal with it.

Back in July, once Senator Obama had essentially sewn up the Democratic nomination, I pointed out that he began sounding more like Bush and less like the guy running against Hillary.

Which, to my mind, is a good thing. At least in the case of National Security.

We could do without a third Bush term on the spending issues, but that's not likely to happen.

In fact, on the economy

The irony here is that Obama actually has much more in common with Bush than McCain does. The second debate centered on the so-called Wall Street bailout. While both candidates supported the ultimate Senate bill, it was McCain who initially reached out to support the House Republicans in their effort to defeat the original Bush-Paulson plan. Obama, on the other hand, expressed his support so long as the plan was adjusted to adopt certain obvious provisions to which no one could object (accountability, upside for the taxpayer, and so forth). Despite a campaign that blames everything on Bush, Obama is quick to follow his Democratic cohorts in supporting Bush on perhaps the biggest issue of the day. Is Bush correct or not?

If Obama were to continue down this path when he takes over in January there will only be three options open to him and the media:

1. Bush was right all along
2. Obama had no choice but to "stay the course"
3. Bush will disappear down the memory hole. All of Bush's accomplishements will become Obama's accomplishments.

Item Three, it seems to me, is the only way Obama becomes a "successful" president.

Of course, if number three becomes the chosen path, then it will be incumbent upon President Obama not to screw things up. So for instance if we leave Iraq too soon and have to go back, that will be blamed on Obama. If Iraq remains successful, that will be credited to Obama.

If America remains free from terrorist attack, Obama can take the credit. If he dismantles the security arrangements left by Bush, and we are attacked, Obama will get the blame.

In order to accomplish Three, will feel constrained by the protocols Bush has put in place, at least in large part, because there is a record of success. And the Institutional Media will help throw things down the memory hole. So that's covered.

Now is a dangerous time. Not only is Russia and Iran testing Obama, but we are in an economic crisis that al Qaida would like to exploit. A terrorist attack on the order of September 11 2001, and its associated economic crisis added to the current one would be devastating.

And above all else, Senator Obama does not want such an occurance to happen on President Obama's watch.

UPDATE: The media recalibration on Iraq has already begun. (via Instapundit)

Exhibit A is the headline that accompanied a recent bombing in Iraq that killed scores of people. Since the US invasion of Iraq, the Obamamedia have used violence as a metric of how badly things were going.

But now that Bush is on the way out and Obama is on the way in:

Iraq bombings show progress, challenges

It's a measure of progress that today's blasts, which killed at least 31 people in Baghdad and more elsewhere, according to the Associated Press, represented the worst day of violence since June.

Yes, believe it or not, bomb blast show how wonderful that world is now that Obama has been elected.

Eleven Eleven

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

Thomas Paine, 1776

According to the US Department of Veterans Affairs:

The U.S. Veterans Population is 23,532,000; 7% (or 1,745,000) are female

The number of living WW II Veterans (as of 9/30/2007) is 2,795,000

1000 WW II Veterans die every day

39% of our Veterans are 65 or older

There are 29,350 former POWs still living

1,807 soldiers are still MIA from Vietnam

Capt. Michael Speicher of the Gulf War remains classified as missing/captured

8 veterans of the Battle for Iraq were captured by the enemy and rescued.

Spc. Keith Maupin, Spc. Ahmed K. Altaie, Pvt. Byron W. Fouty, and Spc. Alex R. Jimenez are all currently missing.

My father is a WWII veteran.

My son is a veteran of OIF2.

Both my grandfathers were veterans of WWI; one was not even a US citizen at the time he fought for America and became a POW.

Nancy Thorner writes

...fewer than ten percent of Americans can claim the title of "veteran." American forces have liberated millions of people held hostage by history's evil tyrants. It should therefore come as no surprise that the American GI is accorded time and again the honor of "most respected" in public opinion polls and surveys, or that a national day has been set aside to pay tribune to all veterans throughout this nation's history.

Thanks to all who have served and the families who have sacrificed right along with them.

It is a great privileged to share this country with you all.

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.

Thomas Paine, 1776

Terrorist Court

President-elect Obama wants to make good on his promise to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The question has always been, how do you do that?

President-elect Obama's advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice....

Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.

But there is a subset of detainees who are being detained as the result of classified information: Information, that if revealed in open court, would reveal methods, practices, and individuals that may very well be detrimental to our counter-terrorism intelligence gathering.

For this group, President-elect Obama is proposing a new type of court system.

The plan is likely to involve the creation of a new, hybrid court that would combine elements of existing military tribunal system at the naval base in Cuba and criminal courts....

A third group of detainees – the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information – might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks.

The problem here is that this doesn't really solve the problem; it just moves it.

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and Obama legal adviser, said: "I think the answer is going to be, they can be as securely guarded on US soil as anywhere else. We can't put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there."

Many Democrats have argued that giving these detainees anything less than full Constitutional Rights at their trials is unacceptable. Yet

"There would be concern about establishing a completely new system," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of the House Judiciary Committee and former federal prosecutor who is aware of the discussions in the Obama camp. "And in the sense that establishing a regimen of detention that includes American citizens and foreign nationals that takes place on U.S. soil and departs from the criminal justice system — trying to establish that would be very difficult."

So how does one keep dangerous terrorists under lock and key if the evidence against them can not be revealed in open court?

There are a number of detainees we no longer want to keep at Gitmo, but no country wants them either. If we bring them to America, and that problem still exists, do we release them on US soil?

And how about those that can not be prosecuted because we are unwilling to reveal the origins of the case against them in open court. Do they too get released in the US if there is no place that will accept them outside the US?

I suspect many agree Guantanamo is not a great solution. But what is the real difference between holding these people there or here?

The problems remain the same.

Perhaps President-elect Obama and his team will arrive at a solution that is both equitable and maintains security.

Or perhaps, now that it is no longer President Bush deciding that some need to be locked away without the benefit of a trial that conforms with the US Constitution, it will be OK.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey points out that the Supreme Court has invalidated the type of court system Obama plans. Twice.

...the point of military tribunals was to establish a system that protected American intelligence in the war on terror.  The Supreme Court rejected those restrictions in the military tribunal system.  They’re not likely to sign off on a civil system that adopts the same restrictions.

Even without the obvious security issues of bringing terrorists onto American soil, these questions will continue to haunt the processing of these terrorists.  The Supreme Court left the US in the position of either blowing the cover of intel resources by forcing the government to provide constitutional protections to enemies of the US at war with our nation, or releasing them to plan more attacks.  Either Obama or McCain would have to deal with that ridiculous position, and so far, Obama seems to be pursuing the same basic strategy that the Court rejected twice.

...and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct

From Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 700.202 paragraph (c)

The Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. In addition, the Marine Corps shall provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy, shall provide security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases, and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct. However, these additional duties may not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized.

From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli to Iraq and Afghanistan

Happy 233rd Birthday, Marines.

And thanks.

What people want from President Obama and the Democrats in Congress

The Club for Growth surveyed 12 districts that "represent the political middle of the country". Of those who were surveyed, 48% were Obama supporters and 44% were McCain supporters. And since this survey was conducted a few days before the election, 8% were undecided. 45% preferred Democrats to be in control of Congress while 40% preferred Republicans.

This survey of public opinion in 12 congressional districts across the nation was conducted November 1-2, 2008, among 800 likely general election voters. All interviews were conducted by professional interviewers by telephone. Interview selection was at random from among lists of registered voters with a history of voting in general elections in each district. The sample was equally weighted among the 12 districts. The accuracy of this survey with 800 likely voters is within +/-3.46% at a 95% confidence interval.

What the survey tells us is that people are not interested in using the tax code to redistribute wealth. Only 23% favored a redistributionist tax system while 73% did not favor such a tax system. 62% want the Bush Tax cuts extended while only 26% want them to expire. And 66% want the inheritance tax cut to be made permanent.

And most people (66%) want Congress to cut spending. And only 39% thought that Government isn't doing enough while most (54%) thought Government is doing too much.

A large majority of people (72%) want to America to drill for oil offshore.

A plurality (47%) believe that free trade is good.

It is quite clear from this that Americans should have voted Republican. Why didn't they?

Because 80% of the people agree with the statement "The Republicans used to be the party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose."

Democrats take note: If you want to maintain your majority you will have a much better chance if you become the party that embraces the ideals the Republicans have abandoned.

THE DISTRICTS
The survey was conducted in the following 12 congressional districts: Arizona-01; Colorado-04; Florida-08; Minnesota-03; Nevada-03; New Jersey-03; New York-13; North Carolina-08; Ohio-16; Pennsylvania-03; Illinois-11; and Virginia-11.

These 12 districts have the following significant characteristics:

• All were House seats that were held by Republicans going into this election (5 by incumbent Republicans seeking reelection; 7 open seats left by retiring Republicans incumbents.)
• The districts were distributed evenly throughout the country: 3 in the Northeast; 3 in the South; 3 in the West; 3 in the Midwest.
• The districts were evenly distributed by party affiliation: 37% Republican, 40% Democrat; 19% Independent/Other.
• In 2004, President Bush carried all districts with a narrow average of 53%.
• On Election Day 2008, Democrats were elected to replace Republicans in all but one of these 12 districts (Minnesota-03).

Something to consider

Sgt. David Goldich, USMC, wrote the following in the new Proceedings;

Lately I have been thinking of what lessons I should pass on to those who follow me. And there is an unfortunate truth that needs to be shared with and understood by our young Marines: Iraq has likely set predictable patterns for the future. Our enemies know that the only Americans who can or need be beaten do not wear uniforms. A society that does not have the will to let warriors die fighting will not long survive. A civilization that values its very being less than the dignity of its sworn enemies should be morally prepared to fail.

Tech. Sgt. Christopher J. Frost

On May 18, 2008, while conducting a counter-improvised explosive device mission in Iraq, Air Force Tech. Sgt. Christopher J. Frost was seriously wounded when the vehicle in which he was riding struck a large, buried IED.

"The explosion severely injured three personnel and killed one," Frost said. "I lost my right leg below the knee, sustained severe injuries to my left foot and ankle and broke the orbit of my right eye. Other than losing my right leg, the physical therapy I need for my left foot, and learning to use a prosthetic, I do not feel that my injury has changed me. I did not suffer a brain injury, nor do I suffer from any [post-traumatic stress disorder]."

As Weapons Intelligence Flight team leader for Weapons Intelligence Team 1, Multi-National Division, North Weapons Intelligence Section, in Joint Task Force Troy at Forward at Operating Base Brassfield-Mora, Iraq, from Dec. 9, 2007, to May 20, 2008, Frost is described as providing "flawless" support to the 101st Airborne Division's 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, and associated units.

When he first arrived in Iraq, Frost was directly responsible for the acquisition, distribution and maintenance of more than $2 million worth of technical exploitation and force protection equipment. His efforts resulted in the overwhelming success of more than 400 combat missions conducted in the most lethal area of Iraq's Salahuddin province.

Despite his injuries, Frost plans to remain in the Air Force for seven more years until retirement. He also plans on keeping his Air Force specialty code of 3E871, explosive ordnance disposal.

Frost is in the process of moving from the Royal Air Force base at Lakenheath, England, to his next assignment at the 316th Civil Engineer Squadron at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., and plans to re-enlist in December. "I strongly believe in the mission that the Air Force and the other services are performing in assisting Iraqi government, military and civilian forces in brining peace, stability and eventually renewed prosperity to Iraq," he said.

Frost currently is an outpatient staying at the Mologne House at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., recovering from his injuries.

Congratulations President-elect Obama

Senator Obama will be our next President. He is a candidate I opposed in the election for a number of reasons which no longer matter.

Because he was an unknown, I looked into his past associations and dealings for a clue into how he would govern and decided I didn't like what what it foretold.

But now that is moot. It only matters now what he does.

He was a candidate who ran to the Left of Hillary in the Primaries and then became a Centrist for the election. I wondered which candidate he was? It is clear that Obama the politician knows this is a Center-right country and because of that he framed his policies as being tax-cutting and tough on terrorism.

But none of that matters now. He will be what he will be and in four years we will judge him on his record; a record that was mostly lacking during the campaign.

The election of Senator Obama proves once again, though, that we are the greatest country on Earth. No other country has elected to their highest office someone of a minority race as if it didn't matter.

And it didn't matter and we should be proud of that.

So President-elect Obama; you promised to issue in an era of a new, more bipartisan form of politics. You promised to govern from the center and to do your best protect us from our enemies.

In all of these things I wish you well.

Put more strongly, I hope for you to become our greatest President ever.

You have become something that only 43 men before you have ever attained.  An office of great responsibility and power. The office of the President of the United States.

May God bless you as you execute your duties.

Cleared

Well, now.

A report has cleared Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin of ethics violations in the firing of her public safety commissioner.

Released Monday, the report says there is no probable cause to believe Palin or any other state official violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with the firing. The report was prepared by Timothy Petumenos, an independent counsel for the Alaska Personnel Board.

I wonder how much play this will get today?

The new American order: Cut defense, increase taxes

Democrats are salivating over the new American Order they envision will be inaugurated on Nov 5th. And they're not shy about talking about it. When speaking to reporters, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said

"If the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan."

Clearly bipartisanship to her means no pesky dissenting voices from the Democratic plans. And what are those plans?

After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.

The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said.

The response to that is this

In what may be the first of many fiscal fights, two Republican congressmen lashed out at the notion that the nation should buy more butter and fewer guns.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was discussing the economic crisis and a second economic stimulus bill with a home-state newspaper when he dropped a bomb – calling for a 25 percent cut to the Pentagon's budget.

Just the suggestion brought a prompt response from two Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee, which is focused on equipping troops who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rep. John McHugh of New York and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland are the two lawmakers in line to replace the retiring Rep. Duncan Hunter of California as the committee's Republican.

"Talking about a 25 percent spending reduction in the defense budget with troops on the ground is reckless and, if enacted, could have immediate and long-term consequences for America and those individuals who risk their lives daily to defend our nation," McHugh said. "Rather than talking about dramatic spending reductions, we instead need to ensure that our baseline defense spending provides the necessary equipment, materiel, and force protection for our armed forces."

Bartlett called Frank’s statement "grossly irresponsible."

"A 25 percent cut in defense spending will endanger our troops deployed in harm's way and America's national security for years to come," Bartlett said. "It's even more astonishing considering that congressional Democratic leaders want to increase the deficit by spending twice as much, $300 billion, for a second stimulus package of domestic spending."

But what difference will that make when anti-war, pro-socialist Democrats control the House, the Senate and the Presidency?

After September 11, 2001, we went to war with the military we had, one greatly reduced from Reagan's military force because of Clinton cashing in on the Peace Dividend.

Now we are fighting a Global War on Terrorism, and Senator Obama wants to increase our presence in Afghanistan. But the Democratic Congress wants to reduce the size of a military that Democrats have long griped is too thin to begin with.

Meanwhile, China and Russia increase their military spending.

Back in June of 2007, the only thing standing in the way of Democrats ballooning the Federal Budget was Bush and Senate Republicans:

Back in control of the purse strings after more than a decade, congressional Democrats are pursuing billions in new domestic spending, setting up another clash with President Bush, who has threatened to veto any measures that exceed his budget....

All told, the dozen spending bills would add $23 billion, or about 2.5 percent, to the president's $932 billion budget request...

At the heart of the debate is a reality inescapable for either side: Even without the war, spiraling health-care and Social Security costs have stressed the nation's finances to the breaking point. "Absent any action to change the path of health-care and Social Security spending and a decision about the level of taxes, you cannot fix the long-term fiscal challenge," said Susan Irving, federal budget analyst at the Government Accountability Office and author of a report released yesterday titled "The Bottom Line: Federal Fiscal Policy Remains Unsustainable."

Senator Obama's tax "reduction" plan will reduce the number of people paying into Social Security and Medicare by millions. Who is going to take up the slack?

Earmarks promise another front in the spending war. Obey has said that at least for the first wave of spending bills, Democrats will add pet spending projects during the conference between the House and Senate to decide on a final version of the bill. Obey said the change allows appropriators more time to vet the earmarks. But critics of the practice say adding earmarks at such a late stage shields them from public scrutiny.

If things go as the pollsters expect tomorrow, you can look forward to thousands of defense workers being laid off, all of which will then be eligible for Senator Obama's tax credits which will be paid for by everyone who doesn't get laid off: i.e. The Rich.

And who will be there to stop them?

It won't be you.

You'll have given them the green light by giving them the Presidency and increasing their numbers in Congress.

Well, maybe not you.