Leaving Afghanistan is the right thing to do

Voices from both sides of the aisle are already charging that President Obama's plan to begin drawing own troops in Afghanistan is a political ploy to win re-election. They see a man who ran as Anti-War - who escalated one war, and began another in Libya - looking to reestablish his credentials with the Democratic base.

But sometimes we do the right thing for the wrong reasons. It is time to leave Afghanistan. We entered the country with two goals: (1) capture Osama Bin Laden, and (2) punish the Taliban for sheltering and incubating Al Qaeda and the bombers who struck us on 9/11. We have accomplished both of those goals (though Bin Laden died in Pakistan). And we have invested over 10 years and hundreds of billions of dollars in turning Afghanistan from a third-world war-zone into a functional nation state. It is enough. At this point, the Afghani people have to decide their own fate, and a continued American military presence is merely allowing them to put off the hard decisions and the tough compromises needed to knit together their fractured nation.

Many of my Conservative friends will disagree on this. They'll say that without us, Afghanistan will collapse into chaos and the Taliban will rise again. They may even say that without us in Afghanistan, Pakistan may radicalize and transform into a proto-Iran. But there comes a time in every intervention - whether in our personal lives or the world at large - where the object of the intervention needs to stand on its own. Or fall. Unless we're willing to decide that Afghanistan is the 51st state, it is time to go.

President Obama releases his birth certificate

If you were a doubter, here you go. Although, I doubt very much this will silence those who align themselves with the "birther" movement. But here's hoping this forestalls months and months of pointless debate during the actual 2012 presidential campaign among the serious candidates.

If any of our Mod-Blog readers were among the doubters, what is your reaction to this development. And do you agree with Donald Trump that it is all due to him?

Government Shutdown Averted by Last-Second Deal

It is no surprise to me, but a great relief to military families, to see that a government shut-down has been averted by a late-night deal between Congressional Republicans, Congressional Democrats, and President Barack Obama. The deal contains $38 billion in cuts - less than the Republicans wanted, but far more than the Democrats had been hoping for - and sets the stage for an even-more-bitter battle leading up to the 2012 elections.

Although, you have to admit one thing. This has made it clear where each party stands - and even more where the President stands. It leaves a clear choice for voters next year.

The administration largely succeeded in blocking the most controversial policy riders impacting the environment and abortion-rights. But the spending cut is one of the single largest in history, and a preview of what lies ahead when Republicans move their 2012 budget plan next week and fight with Obama over raising the debt ceiling in May and June.

A Speech on Libya

Peggy Noonan is one of many Conservatives (and many anti-war Liberals) demanding President Barack Obama explain the military action against Libya. They argue that the president's informal and scattered remarks are counter-productive. Let me suggest the below as a possible speech, based on what I have picked up from my own reading.

This is my own creation, done with a minimal amount of research. Please forgive my amateurism. And yes, I do suspect this is what is going on in the President's mind. Although, I am not sure he'd choose to be this brief. ;-)

Good evening.

I come before you tonight to talk about the hardest duty of any president - sending men and women into battle to protect the interests of the United States of America. Combat should never be entered into lightly, and the lives of our soldiers should always be held dear in the minds and hearts of all Americans. We should never spend blood and treasure without urgent need and compelling national interest. And we should always seek the counsel and assistance of our allies.

In February, inspired by events in Yemen, Egypt, and elsewhere, the people of Liyba rose up against the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi. They successfully seized control of large, economically powerful portions of their country and they have held their positions against relentless assaults from the increasingly desperate dictator. The Libyan people have made it clear that they want freedom from Mr. Gaddafi. At the same time, it now appears the tyrant is willing to do anything to eliminate this opposition, including the annihilation of civilians. If we wish to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, there is an urgent need for action.

Muammar Gaddafi has long been an enemy of the free world and the United States, on particular. In 1981, he threatened the assassination of President Ronald Reagan. In 1988, he ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. And he has continued to fund and encourage terrorism against Americans around the world. He has proved himself to be a foe of America, and a foe of all free peoples.

A broad international consensus has formed that Mr. Gaddafi's actions are intolerable. Even the Arab League - normally opposed to any action by Western powers in the Middle East - has called upon the international community to protect Libyan civilians. On March 17, the United Nations established a no-fly zone over the nation of Libya, and passed a resolution calling upon member nations to protect his civilian population.

In light of this urgent need, compelling national interest, and unanimous voice of our allies, I have given order to our commanders in the region to work with our allies - most prominently Britain, France, and Germany - to do what is necessary to protect civilians from this brutal dictator. This will include the creation of a no-fly zone, the reduction of Mr. Gaddafi's offensive capabilities against allied air forces, and the bombing of front-line positions to establish a perimeter around civilian positions.

Let me be clear. I have not taken this action lightly. And American lives will not be at risk in this engagement any longer than is necessary. I expect the American leadership in this operation to last weeks, not months. We will pledge ongoing aid and training to ensure civilians remain safe. But we will not expend a drop more American blood than is necessary.

America is a mighty force for good in this world. For peace. For security. We desire all people to be free. We will protect our friends, and punish our foes. We will not waste the blessings we have been given.

Thank you. And God bless America.

Is our Middle East intellgence as bad as 9/11/2001?

After 9/11 happened, we were told one of the first things to be fixed were the weaknesses in our Mideast intelligence. We were told that lack of information sharing and lack of human intelligence had allowed Osama Bin Laden to operate freely, and large below the radar. Thus was born the "Department of Homeland Security". Ten years later, reasonable people are asking if anything has really changed, since all of the Jasmine Revolutions took us by surprise.

Did we have adequate intelligence of what was about to happen? The obvious answer is "no," across the board. The ensuing debate about why we were caught so flatfooted will undoubtedly reverberate over the next several months. We are not looking for predictions, but for more information for policy makers and less reliance on foreign intelligence services. Our dearth of human sources in the Middle East has been a problem for decades during many administrations. And what we need now are more resources and operations, not fewer.

If it turns out that after 10 years and multiple billions of dollars have been spent that we have no better understanding of the Middle East, then we have been deceived and a special prosecutor may be needed. At the very least, the Bush Administration needs to be called out for not delivering an effective intelligence apparatus to President Obama.

Why is the United States so quiet on the Jasmine Revolutions?

Well, the so-called Jasmine Revolutions are still rolling through the Middle East, and are lapping at the shores of Asia. Tunisia and Egypt have thrown off their decades-long dictators, and countries like Bahrain and Libya are struggling to do the same. Even Iran and Yemen are seeing mass demonstrations against tyranny. And yet, the United States has remained relatively silent. We have engaged the conflicts only after the victors are clear or the attacks on demonstrators are so monstrous that they can not be ignored. How is it that the country that regards Freedom and Liberty more highly than any other, has so little to say?

My best guess is that or leaders - primarily President Obama - is thinking one of these thoughts:
1. We're hated in the Middle East, so our support may hurt more than it helps.
2. We've supported too many Middle East Tyrants to credibly support democracy.
3. We can't afford to send money or troops, so we won't support with words.
4. These revolutions have nothing to do with America.

Unfortunately, all of these thoughts are incredibly cynical. Especially when we're lead by a man who campaigned on "Hope" and "Change". Hope and Change are coming to the Middle East. I'd rather we go down in history as standing with them, than standing on the sidelines.

The TSA's "Grope-Gate" is strengthening the Tea Party

There are times when President Obama looks like a true genius - parsing and analyzing the national mood with piercing insight. And there are times when he truly seems to be tone-deaf to the American people.

"Grope-gate", the policy of enhanced scanning and invasive pat-downs by the TSA at airports, has triggered a chorus of outrage. It started small, with a few malcontents looking to stir the pot on civil liberties issues, but it has steadily grown as anecdotes about hands down pants, medical equipment pulled out and destroyed, and people being threatened with jail or massive fines for attempting to opt out have filled the news. In light of this outrage, a savvy politician had two choices: (1) decry the bad policy and call for change, or (2) release the intelligence that showed why such intrusions were necessary.

Instead, President Obama has supported the invasive procedures without giving any concrete evidence of their necessity (or effectiveness).

The result is likely to be a Republican Congress even more bold and unbending than would have been seen otherwise. The Tea Party rose with a very simple (some would say simplistic) narrative: "Government has gotten too big and wants to intrude into every aspect of your life." Instead of defusing this idea, the TSA policies give a concrete picture to what "government intrusion" looks like - it is agents taking naked pictures of you and making fun of them, or literally feeling you up and punishing you if you say "No." This, more than anything else, is likely to become to defining image of President Obama's America for 2011. And unlike the economy, it is nothing he can blame on anyone else. It was a policy that was ordered under his watch, for conditions that developed under his watch, and a policy which he has publicly endorsed.

Your move, Republicans. Almost anything you can do or say from here will look like the calm and reasonably approach in contrast.

President Obama doubles-down on Health Care Reform

Congress put forth two unpopular Health Care Reform plans - one by the House and one from the Senate. Both were pushed with considerable urgency by the White House. And these plans and the sense of reckless pace of passage was extremely unpopular with voters, and lead to the lowest ratings in recorded history of Congress. And, of course, the election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. So, what do you do if you are President Obama? Apparently, more of the same stuff that ruined Democratic chances for 2010.

President Barack Obama is putting forward a nearly $1 trillion, 10-year health care plan that would allow the government to deny or roll back egregious insurance premium increases that infuriated consumers....
It conspicuously omits a government insurance plan sought by liberals.

They say "insanity" is defined as "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.". I realize the president is trying to pass something before his Democratic majority is either reduced, or eliminated altogether in the 2010 elections. But one has to wonder if this would be easier to sell if the various measures were passed separately and the overall scope reduced.

The Cure is just as bad as the Disease?

From Townhall.Com

State of the Union - Read/Watch it for Yourself

I missed the State of the Union address in favor of a little thing I like to call "real life." If you were like me, I figured you might like to read the transcript today to catch up on what the president has planned for the remainder of 2010. The video of the event is up on the White House Blog. And of course, you can always read the Republican response, too.

Some allusions are inevitable

Republican Scott Brown wins Mass. Senate Seat

It seems like so much of the politics surrounding Barack Obama is driven inexorably by history, defying expectations and stereotypes. His own rise to power dumbfounded critics - a relatively obscure junior Senator became president over a Hillary Clinton (the assumed nominee from the day she announced). Now, the Obama agenda is threatened by another wave of history as Republican Scott Brown has defeated Democrat Martha Coakley to win the senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy. This seat has been held by a Democrat for for decades, and Massachusetts has not sent any Republican to the Senate since 1972 - two year before I was born.

Brown's victory was so sweeping, he even won in the Cape Cod community where Sen. Edward Kennedy, the longtime liberal icon, died of brain cancer last August.
"While the honor is mine, this Senate seat belongs to no one person, no one political party," Brown told his supporters Tuesday night. "This is the people's seat," he added to chants of "People's seat!"
Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, which could allow the GOP to block the health care bill. Democrats needed Coakley to win for a 60th vote to thwart Republican filibusters.

Seriously

Health Reform empowers IRS

It was seen as a key victory for the average American when the IRS lost power under President George W. Bush. In the late 90s and 2000s, there were a number of high profile cases of abuse of power by the Internal Revenue Service which illustrated Conservatives fears of the unbounded power of agents. Now, as part of President Obama's desire to be the anti-Bush, it appears the pending Health Care Reform Bill is poised to return significant new powers to the IRS, as it will be the primary agency responsible to monitor American's purchasing of Health Insurance. Anyone who fails to purchase insurance under the new rules, will be paying their fines to the IRS.

Welcome back, Tax Man.

I am proud to have voted for Joe Lieberman in the last election

From here. Sometimes "No" is the most powerful and patriotic word in the English language.

Do you believe in political illusions?

From here.

Stimulus produced net job loss

When dealing with a subject as inherently "fuzzy" as economics, it is hard to draw hard conclusions based on "what if?" scenarios. Every push and prod is balanced and opposed by unforeseen events and forces. It remains as much an art as a science.

But that being said, it may be time to start drawing tentative conclusions about President Obama's Economic Stimulus Bill, as actual job totals by state now show that 49 out of 50 states have fewer jobs now than before the stimulus passes, and - more significantly - net job losses where the White House's projections predicted job gains. This means either (1) the economy was overall weaker than expected, so the stimulus effect was negligible, or (2) the stimulus was ineffective and may have caused more harm than good.

That being said, the American people clearly wanted a stimulus bill at the time, so we can't claim that we didn't get what we asked for. But one must wonder if the current rumblings about a "second stimulus bill" will help or hurt us in the end.

Peace Prize Judo

From here

Priorities

From here

Obama: Make the School Year Longer

If President Obama had any hope of recovering his approval rating among teens, he probably just lost it when he announced support for making children go to school longer each day and each year. The reasoning given is that schoolchildren in other developed nations have longer school years, and are learning more than Americans.

"Now, I know longer school days and school years are not wildly popular ideas," the president said earlier this year. "Not with Malia and Sasha, not in my family, and probably not in yours. But the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom."

"Our school calendar is based upon the agrarian economy and not too many of our kids are working the fields today," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.

This is not a new idea. When I was in high school, they were talking about year-round schooling and experimenting with alternative school schedules. Very few showed any concrete results. Then again, it does seem strange that we're still observing school schedules based on the corn harvest in parts of the country where you can't find a corn stalk.