SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (527721)11/10/2009 9:56:58 PM
From: i-node3 Recommendations  Respond to of 1576600
 
>> I have my own ideas, thank you very much.

Bullshit. I can think of no person posting here is more of a head-nodder than you are.



To: koan who wrote (527721)11/11/2009 6:58:55 AM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 1576600
 
Don't forget he is keeping the rendition policy (that Clinton started), is still spying on communications with our enemies (though they're not doing anything with the information - like Hasan's emails to a radical in Yemen) and he hasn't set free the Gitmo detainees yet.

Oh yeah, he hasn't renounced his opposition to gay marriage yet.



To: koan who wrote (527721)11/11/2009 12:57:59 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576600
 
Obama campaigned on escalating the war in Afghanistan, taking it into Pakistan as necessary. He sent more troops in the spring and now he'll soon be sending more. Its always been a foregone conclusion Obama will do essentially what the generals advise with only modest changes. First, he doesn't know what else to do. Second, the ONLY thing Obama and the WH gang care about are political concerns. If they manifestly do something different than the generals advise and something bad happens there'd be hell to pay politically.

Obama has been delaying doing that only to get beyond the elections just passed and beyond the House health care fight. Apparently they were worried about PO'ing the leftist base till now. So now we're a decent interval beyond the elections, Pelosicare has been passed and he'll make his months-delayed decision soon.

Getting to “Yes”

Jennifer Rubin - 11.11.2009 - 9:04 AM

We may be near the end of the dithering. This report explains: “President Barack Obama on Wednesday will consider a new compromise plan for adding troops to Afghanistan that would deploy 30,000 to 35,000 new forces, including as many as 10,000 military trainers, over the next year or more.”

So what are we getting after all the seminars and the sage analysis of Gens. Biden, Emanuel, and Axelrod? Pretty much what Gen. Stanley McChrystal recommended months ago:

The total troops proposed are “at the top end of the bracket in terms of what McChrystal asked for — it may not reach 40,000, but it won’t be far off,”
said an official briefed on the hybrid plan. “The overall strategy is going to be — which McChrystal has made a big deal about — getting Afghans up to the right pace. The strategy therefore needs capacity builders, trainers.”

The White House continues to haggle with the military (Make it 37,500!), which suggests that this is a PR battle to cast the president’s final decision as something other than mere acceptance of McChrystal’s recommendation. After all, if Obama simply, albeit belatedly, approved McChrystal’s plan, people might wonder why we’ve wasted all this time. And the Left might realize that all their squawking and foot-stomping got them nowhere.

Some will argue that this angst-ridden and protracted process was beneficial and that we gained something so we could “get it right.” But that’s consultant-speak. In reality, the “process” has served only to make the president look weak and indecisive and to suggest that national-security decisions are held hostage to political considerations. Obama’s dawdling has upset our allies, emboldened our foes, and frustrated our military. On a political level, his delay only infuriated conservatives and embarrassed his own supporters. Most of all, we’ve left troops in the field without the support and strategy they need for a prolonged — unnecessarily so — period of time. And for what? Apparently so Obama could flex his muscles and declare he wasn’t going to be told what to do by his generals.

It has been a shabby performance indeed.

commentarymagazine.com



To: koan who wrote (527721)11/11/2009 12:58:37 PM
From: Brumar89  Respond to of 1576600
 
AG Holder upholding PATRIOT Act.

Actually, in this context ’same as the old boss’ would be a comfort. To me, at least, if not the folks who made such a hullabaloo over the PATRIOT Act; I’m not worried about the government abusing its authority so much as I worry about it making an utter hash of its attempt to try to use it. But of course said ‘abuse’ was not the least common election-year theme – usually in the context of how things would change, once the Republicans weren’t running things. And usually argued by people who really should have known better.

Which is why I’m more amused than anything else about this:

Attorney General Eric Holder endorsed the Senate’s version of legislation that would extend three provisions of the Patriot Act that are slated to expire at the end of the year.

Holder wrote in a letter today to Senate Judiciary Committee members that he offers “strong support” for the USA Patriot Act Sunset Extension Act, which would reauthorize the “lone wolf,” records and “roving wiretap” powers.
By contrast, a House version of the bill would not continue the “lone wolf” provision, which lets the government track targets who don’t have any discernible affiliation with terrorist or other foreign groups.

…although I admit that I’m kind of curious of which member of the current ruling party thought that it was a good idea to hamper lone wolf surveillance. The timing for that seems… suboptimal.
Moe Lane

moelane.com