Monday, January 26, 2009

Nelson’s Critique, Hagel’s Spat, No Change With Obama

Published around 1 December 2009

Senator Nelson has recently taken exception with President Bush’s use of “Signing Statements” which allow the President to sign but ignore certain parts of legislation as deemed necessary for national security. Nelson has argued these statements override the will of Congress and the checks and balances of power among three equal branches of government.

While I agree with Senator Nelson that Iraq should be paying the way for their security (the subject of the Signing Statement that prompted his outcry) I find it interesting that we haven’t heard the same concern from him about a balance of power with a liberal led Congress, a leftist President, and a Supreme Court that usually breaks left. More over, it will be interesting to watch if Nelson turns the same critical eye to Obama’s judicial nominees which are all but guaranteed to be liberal activist judges who make up laws from the bench, usurp the Constitution, and override the will of Congress, the people, and the States. Will he be as concerned then? We’ll be watching.

What of that Hagel-Limbaugh spat? Was that someone masquerading as a conservative trying to pick a fight over ideology with someone who is a conservative? Hagel’s provocation reminded me of a kid who’s excellent at the Guitar Hero video game challenging Eddie Van Halen to a real guitar playing contest.

I thought the world was going to be in harmony and at peace now that Obama was elected President. Wasn’t his election going to save America and the world? It seems that someone forgot to tell the Islamic terrorists who conducted the attacks in India targeting Americans, other westerners, and Jews.

The reality is that Islamic militants don’t give a rip who the President is or is going to be. Their agenda and ideology of hatred for everyone who’s not like them remains the same. Convert or die is still the rule, even when Obama’s President.

But again, given the impression that Obama was going to save us and that all would be right with the world, I’m struggling to understand Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Al Qaeda.

Russia is now threatening to aim missiles at Europe (or worse) and they’re conducting show-of-force military exercises with Venezuela specifically aimed at us. Chavez is talking as tough as ever. Iran has increased their centrifuges to 5000 en route to making nuclear bomb fuel and is testing new long range missiles. Al Qaeda’s number two man is personally insulting Obama with old racial slurs, running with the same “burn America burn” mentality he’s always had. Maybe Al Qaeda didn’t get the memo about Obama being the savior? So much for world peace and love under Obama.

With the exception of National Security Advisor and SECDEF, Obama has been recycling many old Clinton club members and some of the most liberal and partisan Democrats he can find to fill his Administration, including Rahm Emanuel, Tom Daschle, Eric Holder, and Hillary herself. So much for “change.”

He has nominated retired General Jim Jones to be his National Security Advisor. Jones is more than qualified, but why would Obama choose him? Obama’s already said he doesn’t plan to listen to those with knowledge of how to provide security, even someone as successful as General Petraeus, when they hold contradictory views. There’s no reason to believe he’ll listen to Jones. As with the entirety of his campaign, this move looks to be symbolic, not substantive. He won’t listen to Jones, but it looks good to have him there.

He’s also nominated Robert Gates to stay on as SECDEF. He’s proven he can lead the Pentagon to win a war under Bush, but can he prove to lose one when forced to do so under Obama? Is Gates’ retention simply symbolic, like with Jones, or a venue to continue blaming things on Bush? After all, if Obama’s policies fail and Iraq erupts into a cauldron of Islamic militants, Obama can simply blame it on “Bush’s guy.”

The Iraqi’s have given us through 2011 to help them rebuild, but Obama is set to throw in the towel in 16 months. But does it really matter what happens in Iraq when Obama raises the white flag? Have our troops and the Iraqi people built a solid enough foundation for the country to stand on, despite the detrimental Obama factor? I’ve previously argued that the Surge has gone so well and Iraq appears more and more solid, that it may not matter what the liberals force upon them. That may still be the case.

No comments: