Cross-posted at: TobyToons.com

Politico has a piece today on preparations President Obama and his inner circle are making for his reelection campaign, which the article states is set to launch early next year.  Mike Allen reports that the campaign is likely to be run out of Chicago and staffed by a cadre of veterans from Obama’s 2008 campaign.

Of particular interest given the news of the week is the role Allen reports for White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina.

President Barack Obama’s top advisers are quietly laying the groundwork for the 2012 reelection campaign, which is likely to be run out of Chicago and managed by White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, according to Democrats familiar with the discussions.  [...]

Advisers said Messina is valued for his relationships on Capitol Hill…

“Jim can bring the bare knuckles, and he can make sure members are advocating for the president,” a colleague said.

Bare knuckles, and felonious offers of plum Administration jobs, too.  Messina is the White House official who allegedly offered Democrat Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff a job in the Department of the Interior to drop his primary challenge of Sen. Michael Bennett in Colorado.  Offering a federal job in exchange for a political favor is a violation of federal law.

Read More →

One of the first priorities of the Obama administration last year was to “reset” strained Bush-era relations with Moscow.  The first step in this policy was the abandonment of the proposed missile defense infrastructure to be placed in Eastern Europe.  The 2007 plan to station 10 long-range interceptor missiles in Poland and an X-band radar station in the Czech Republic was supposedly too controversial and may even present Moscow with a security dilemma that would destabilize Europe.  However, the abandonment of the 2007 plan and the revised 2010 plan has yielded no goods for the United States or the Obama Administration.

Why has this policy failed?  The answer is that Russia never regarded the missile shield as a direct threat and is inclined to milk the badly needed political victory the Obama Administration delivered to them with September 2009 announcement.  Moscow saw the missile shield, not as a security threat, but as an attack on its influence in Eastern Europe.  Russia’s objection was political, not genuine.

When the 2007 plan for a “third site” in Europe (the first and second located in California and Alaska respectively) was abandoned, it had become orthodoxy for international relations and security specialists to cast disparaging doubts on the systems necessity and capability as well as its potentially destabilizing impact on international system.  The abandonment of the third site was lauded as a pragmatic move by the new internationalists in the Whitehouse.  The Administration expected reciprocation from the Kremlin, but it was not forthcoming.  The Russian’s have not budged in their opposition to sanctions on Iran, they continue to wield gas transit and proposed pipelines like a broadsword in Europe and the Russian army maintains positions in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in violation of a French brokered cease fire with Georgia in 2008.

Several myths about the missile shield have been debunked by the Pentagon’s own February 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report. The first, that the 2007 plan was destabilizing, it could neutralize Russia’s nuclear deterrent.  However, the 2010 plan establishes for itself a goal of having a similar multi-stage missile in place in the region by 2020.  It would have to in order to meet the technologically evolving threat from missile proliferators. The 2007 plan, in contrast, would have had long-range interceptor missiles operational by 2017. This is not as dramatic a shift as one would have thought given the tenor of the debate about this issue last fall.

The Russian armed forces commander in chief, Nikolai Makarov, for his part, continued to say the missile shield is directed against Russia, but the Kremlin has certainly changed its tune.   In the 2010 plan, kinetic kill vehicles, by definition strictly defensive weapons which cannot be used for offensive means, are to be replaced by good, old-fashioned explosive warheads.  Yet we do not hear the standard grumbling by Russian President Dimtiry Medvedev about the 2010 plan’s potential threat.

Furthermore, for all the talk about reducing the credibility of Russia’s nuclear stockpile, they are thrilled by the opportunity to reduce it, along with the United States, in bilateral disarmament talks.  Nuclear disarmament is the only arena today where President Medvedev can sit across the table from President Obama on truly equal terms.  This behavior, however, does not lend any veracity to the suggestion that Moscow is threatened by the 2007 plan for a third site in Europe.

The Obama Administration expected reciprocity from the Kremlin for its concession in Eastern Europe.  While this was not an entirely unilateral concession there was no immediate quid pro quo and the lack of tangible benefits has hurt the Administration’s ambitions for Europe.

The Obama Administration’s “reset” policy, which aimed to create a reparative relationship between Russia and the U.S., is all but dead.  The Russians appear perfectly willing to exploit internationalism in a disturbingly Hobbesian way.  The Whitehouse has been rebuffed by a Kremlin establishment that learned long ago to pursue their naked national interests; Washington will not guard their interests for them.  The Obama Administration, having been burned by a misreading of the Russian position, seems to be regaining its humility and is recalibrating the reset button.

It has already been clearly established that US Intelligence Agencies were more than aware of the existence (and potential threat) of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian terrorist who tried to blow up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day. I mean, even the kid’s father made great efforts to warn us. So, who made the decision to let this creep board a plane bound for Detroit on Christmas Day? 

Official testimony makes it clear that US intelligence agencies deliberately let Abdulmutallab board Flight 253, putting the lives of hundreds of passengers and countless on the ground at risk. It is also claimed this was allowed to happen in the course of an “as yet undisclosed intelligence operation”. An “intelligence operation”, system which Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said “worked”. She also added that there was “no suggestion” that the WannaBe Terrorist was “improperly screened.”  Sooooo,  if “the system worked”, why were all of those lives saved by a quick-thinking man from Denmark and why didn’t the proper screening reveal explosives in the man’s freaking underwear?

Side Question:

I am curious. Would the frying of the panty-bomber’s crotch have any effect on his capacity to enjoy the promised gift of his 72 virgins?

So… moving on.

In a USA Today Op-Ed, John Brennan (Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism) writes:

Immediately after the failed Christmas Day attack, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information. Senior counterterrorismofficials from the White House, the intelligence community and the military were all actively discussing this case before he was  Mirandized and supported the decision to charge him in criminal court.

The AP explains:

“By bringing in a so-called ‘clean team’ of investigators to talk to the suspect, federal officials aimed to ensure that Abdulmutallab’s statements would still be admissible if the failure to give him his Miranda warning led a judge to rule out the use of his first admissions . . . . In the end, though, the ‘clean team’ of interrogators did not prod more revelations from the suspect.”

Yeah… “There is a reason why Obama hasn’t given a public statement,” the journalist wrote the day after the attempted bombing. “It’s strategy.”

 ”Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill.” 

As we approach President Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address, it is worth taking a look at where Obama stands with the public one year into The One’s presidency.

As previously discussed here, Obama began his term with higher approval ratings that any president since John F. Kennedy, and lower disapproval ratings of any president except George H. W. Bush.  But a year of broken promises, a far-left liberal agenda, and a near neurotic drive to nationalize health care system, the president finds himself in a much different place at the beginning of his second year in office.

Quinnipiac conducted a poll recently on the question of whether Obama has been a success or a failure thus far, and the results were a shocking rebuke of the Administration in general and President Obama in particular.  When viewed through the proper lens, the poll shows that America’s white-hot love affair with Obama has burned out, as such things are wont to do, and the country is looking to come back home to the security of a trusted old flame.

Read More →

To varying degrees, every presidential candidate makes promises during the course of the campaign that the realities of governing eventually cause the winner to break.  But never has the US seen a president like Barack Obama, whose broken campaign promises far outnumber his fulfilled ones.

The list is seemingly endless:  no lobbyists in the administration, closing Guantanamo Bay, a tax cut for 95% of Americans, a net reduction in federal spending, no new taxes for anyone making under $250,000, health care negotiations on C-SPAN, on and on.  All broken.  What’s more, each of these was broken in absolute terms, not as a result of any nuanced position or interpretation.

Today comes word of another campaign promise to be added to the ash heap of “history’s unmarked grave of discarded campaign promises,” to paraphrase a prior occupant of the Oval Office.  As a candidate, Barack Obama promised to, “put an end to the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all.”  So it was only a matter of time before Obama was certain to be discovered awarding no-bid contracts of his own.

Read More →

You may be familiar with the 1969 book, The Peter Principle, in which Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull promulgated the theory that, “in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” This came to mind when I heard yesterday, via @nwdigest, that a “top Democrat” from Washington is rumored as a potential replacement for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar if he runs for governor of Colorado. I wonder if that’s code for Christine Gregoire.

If so, a new theory will need to be formulated. I’d like to suggest the Obama Principle: “in a political hierarchy, players tend to rise beyond their level of incompetence in direct proportion their WTF!?! factor.”

Obama’s Administration would seem to be a case study. Does Janet “The System Worked or Didn’t Work” Napolitano ring any bells for you? Or “Safe Schools” Czar Kevin Jennings, perhaps?

It seems Christine Gregoire would be a perfect fit for this Administration. She’s certainly proven herself to be incompetent. During her tenure as Attorney General, two avoidable errors cost the State millions of dollars. One of those errors led to the forced resignation of Janet Capp, who sued and eventually settled with the State to the tune of $1.5 million. “Gregoire said the settlement was a “good deal” for taxpayers. She estimated that it would have cost the state more than $500,000 to try the case.” I admit to having weak math skills, but it occurs to me that $500,000 is $1 million less than $1.5 million…so I’m going to conclude that the only way this could have been a “good deal” for the taxpayers is if Gregoire expected to lose in court on the merits of the case.

Either that or her math skills are even worse than mine, which could go a long way toward explaining our current budget situation. Speaking of the budget, Gregoire’s incompetence is truly remarkable. In just five years under her leadership, Washington has plunged from a series of budget surpluses and a fat rainy day fund to a situation so dire, the State Treasurer is warning that the State is about to go broke.

Gregoire’s dismal record on public safety and her penchant for blaming others for her own shortcomings (Gregoire has long-standing experience in this highly prized skill) add to her qualifications for an appointment to any position within the Obama Administration.

As much as I would love for Washington State to be rid of Gregoire, an Administration appointment would be a travesty. So I suppose she’s in.

Cross posted at It’s Only Words.

Just a year into the Obama Administration, things look very different than candidate Obama said they would last November.  Both in domestic and international affairs, the first year of Obama’s presidency must by any objective standard be judged a dismal failure.  His victories have largely been small and partisan, while his defeats have been large and bipartisan.  Obama has been ridiculed even in his moments of triumph, and he closes the year with the dubious distinction of becoming the most polarizing president in history, in the shortest amount of time ever.

On January 20, 2009, the new president’s approval rating stood at 68 percent in the Gallup poll.  Obama started his presidency with the highest approval number in the poll of any president since John F. Kennedy in 1961.  Only twelve percent said they disapproved of his job performance, a low bested only by George H.W. Bush in 1989 and one point lower than the 13 percent who disapproved of Ronald Reagan at the start of his first term in 1981.  Obama began on a high.

Read More →

Seen as a prelude to the White House honoring President Barack Obama’s pledge to shutter the controversial detention facility by January 22, Administration officials last week quietly repatriated twelve Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Among those released were six Yemenis, four Afghanis, and two Somalis, many of whom have been in American custody for the last eight years.

The decision to close Guantanamo–by transferring and trying in civilian court or repatriating detainees–was hailed by Democrats as the first and ultimately necessary step in dismantling the Bush-era detention policies, but has since been met with increasing public skepticism and softening support, with polls finding Americans opposing the closure by more than a 2-to-1 margin.

And with reports now confirming that two Gitmo prisoners were released into the custody of a failed state whose legitimacy the United Nations and our State Department refuse to acknowledge, this sense of apprehension promises to grow deeper still.

The two Somalis, Mohammed Sulaymon Barre and Ismael Arela, were entrusted into the custody of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) by Justice Department officials. A former British protectorate known locally as Somaliland received the pair and, according to local press accounts, immediately freed the former terror suspects.

At the time of his arrest in 2006, the Department of Defense identified Arela as a “courier between East Africa Al Qaeda (EEAQ) and Al Qaeda in Pakistan,” additionally maintaining he held a leadership role in an EEAQ-affiliated group known as the Somali Council of Islamic Courts. Arela was suspected of acquiring weapons and explosives and facilitating the entry of Al Qaeda members into Somalia by way of forging government documents.

Arela’s compatriot was suspected of supporting “forces engaged in hostilities against the United States” while operating an illegal money transfer operation from his home in Pakistan. A member of the Osama Bin Laden-linked al Wafa, a terrorist organization found on the State Department’s dubious Terrorist Exclusion List, and participant in a jihadist training camp in Afghanistan, Barre was found deserving of continued detention in 2005.

Read More →