Cop

So, on my way home I had this… “revalation”… about who I am. Who/what I really am. Who I think I’m really supposed to be. I’ve always fought against it because I thought it was my baser instincts keeping me to a lower calling. But I’m coming to realize that I think it’s actually who I am. That what I thought was my “higher calling” was really just an enlightened understanding of who I am. I’m not meant for a “bigger”, “better”, or “greater” fight. I’m just meant for the fight. Wherever or however that fight takes place is how it is. I cannot control that. All I can do is come to the realization that this life has chosen me and that the world needs people like me. I do not mean this as some grandiose declaration that the world holds great hope for me. It does not. My path is dark, and mean and violent. My path is to fight for the forces of good against the forces of evil and nihilism. Even as I understand that my path is a version of nihilism. I am a soldier. Nothing more, nothing less. It does no good to continue thinking that I will someday be recognized for greatness just for being who I am. If that were to come, it would be because I accepted and embraced my role as it has been presented to me. If I am to be remembered, it will be as a Minneapolis Police Officer who held the line between right and wrong. I have struggled against my true calling, my true nature for too many years. This is who I am and I accept it.

Budget

Ok,I admit that I don't get out much. With my schedule I usually check in on the Obamateurism of the Day in the morning then in the afternoon I catch up on the rest of HotAir and listen to Hugh Hewitt. Most of the time I agree probably 80-90% of what I read/hear. Even most of what AP as has to say except when he goes on his anti-cop rants.

So maybe I'm getting an oversampling of the budget talk. That's entirely possible, but what I'm hearing annoys me to no end. I'm so sick of this $100 billion or $60 billion pro-rated debate. Defunding NPR, Planned Parenthood, NEH, NEA etc etc... I just don't care. None of those things do anything to even come close to fixing our fiscal nightmare. As a political point, no I don't think that the federal government should be funding any of those things. However, talk of cutting them is nothing but red meat for both the liberal and conservative bases. They do nothing to restore solvency.

Seriously. Get over it. Beating your chest and banging the drum over $40 billion dollars may make you feel good or score you points with the TEA party crowd but you are not helping. I'm talking to you Hugh Hewitt.

All this debate does is fire up the bases and leave everyone else yawning when there are serious issues that we could be talking about. We SHOULD be out talking about entitlement reform. Republican leaders SHOULD be on the Sunday shows laying out the numbers and making the case on social security reform. Building a consensus about what needs to be done. There is a large middle ground of people, seniors included, who need to be educated and informed about what social security reform means. Instead we are quibbling over $40 billion dollars and a few million here and there to score some points with the base... What a waste of time.

I keep hearing commenters and callers talk about the lack of presidental leadership, but where is the Republican leadership on the big issues? All I hear is well Paul Ryan will have a plan but we need to talk about this $40 billion!! No, we don't. We need to talk about the plan ahead of time. That way when the time comes we have already had a good portion of the debate and it won't just be Democrats screaming about how draconian it is. This is the time that we need to be making our case.

We need to cut $1.6 TRILLION. This year. Stop wasting my time with this bogus $40 billion argument and get to the adult discussions.

Lybia...

Figure this is an appropriate time as any to give blogging another shot. There has been more than enough going on blog about have just been busy and feel things are generally better left to the experts like HotAir.com. However, I think there is room here for more.

First, do I, at this time, support military intervention in Lybia? Yes, but barely. Did I at the beginning? No. Do I think military action would have been better three weeks ago? Absolutely. But you go to war with the president you have not the president you wish you had (natch).

The problem here is not so much the moral/political justification for intervening in Lybia as a single issue. The problem is how do you square intervening in Lybia with not doing so in Iran, Bahrain, Syria etc.? I don't know, but that's for Obama to explain. I'm not going to try and carry his water on that since I think the man's a dope.

When Lybia first started going downhill I was listening to Hugh Hewitt, who I respect and agree with about 90% of the time. He was adamantly calling for military intervention and I couldn't have disagreed more. At the time there was no clear reason that I could see. The rebels had the momentum and were not, so far as I could tell, in danger of being massacred. Our national interest is, and was, in my humble opinion is in removing Gaddafi and hopefully getting a more pro-Western government in his place. Early on that seemed to be happening. Should we have been more vocal in our support of the rebels? Yes. Should we have been talking to and supporting them clandestinely? Absolutely. I'm in no position to know if that was happening but based on the news reports I've seen I don't think it was.

In order to shape events and outcomes you have to take part in them. If you want the respect of these rebels who are fighting and dying you have to support them when it matters. It doesn't seem that we have done that. Maybe with our air cover they can regroup, counter attack and take out Qaddafi. I don't know. But either way, there will be resentment on their part. Where was the West when it mattered? Where was the West when they could have made a difference and saved rebel lives? Contemplating NCAA tournament brackets apparently.

Given Obama's statements that our involvement will be "days not weeks" and won't involve ground troops, I don't know what he hopes to accomplish here. His goal doesn't seem to be regime change, but if that's not what it is... what's the point?

I think that it's important for America to be the good guy. To stand for liberty whenever possible. I don't think that we can, in good conscience stand by and let Qaddafi carry out a massacre in Benghazi. I just don't. But I don't think that we are doing anyone any favors with a half assed commitment. We are in it to remove Qaddafi or we aren't. Our goal can't be an indefinite stalemate/partition that we have to police. The only way to get involved is to pick a side. Win or lose pick a side.

Wow

Good luck spinning this... 67% Angry about Healthcare takeover

As of 2200 Monday night, MSNBC of all places, shows 25.6% "Excited", 67.2% "Angry", 6.3% "I don't know what to feel. I'm happy that more Americans will be insured, but don't think that anyone should be required to purchase coverage under the threat of costly penalties."

Vets On The Hill: Afghanistan

This is something that I meant to blog about over the weekend but somehow never got around to it. Unfortunately November 5, 2009 was an extraordinarily eventful day and our little event was greatly overshadowed. I hope to write further about the Ft Hood massacre later but for now I'm going to try and stay on topic.

Vets For Freedom

On November 5 we held another Vets On The Hill event, this time in support of General McChrystal and his strategy for an Afghanistan surge. This even was quite a bit smaller than the last one, see my previous post here. We probably had 20-30 veterans. Not everyone was an Iraq/Afghan vet but all of us served at some point. Just for clarification, I deployed with the Minnesota National Guard to Iraq from March 2006 to July 2007. My unit was extended for four months at the beginning of the surge so that the first surge units could deploy straight to Baghdad. Our 16 month tour is the longest tour of any combat brigade that I am aware of in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Despite the smaller turnout, I think the fact that we had as many members show up as we did on less than three weeks notice and at our own expense shows how serious we are about this issue. When we have troops in combat we must not allow them to be left dangling while politicians wring their hands and worry about invented crises like health care.

Interestingly, this time around Democrats seemed much more willing to meet with us than they were last time, but I was also surprised that unlike last time we didn't have any meetings with Minnesota Republicans. Again Minnesota Rep Kieth Ellison had his Legislative Director meet with three of us from Minnesota. The meeting was not productive but was cordial. We basically agreed to disagree while agreeing that it was a complex difficult issue. Or something like that. It was a very DC meeting.

Next we met with MN Rep Betty McCollum's Chief of Staff. This meeting was again very cordial. When meeting with staff members I never really know how to read these things. I don't believe that McCollum, or any Democrat we met with for that matter, is at all willing to push the President on this issue.

I had some free time in the middle of the day so I did a walk in at House Minority Leader John Boehner's office. Not just because he's a big wig but I did happen to grow up in his district. He was not available but I did have a nice chat with his Legislative Assistant. I was assured that Rep Boehner was on our side on this issue and that he was hoping to have General McChrystal testify.

I also stopped by the TEA party rally for awhile. I support their message but... more on that later.

I then went with one other VFF member to meet Maryland Rep Chris Van Hollen. This was interesting for a few reasons. There was a vote going on so we did not meet in his regular office. We went to the Capitol building and met in a room next to the House Floor which was kind of cool. It was also interesting because I really felt that in his heart, he knew what the right side of this issue was. Again, he wasn't willing to overstep his position, but we got to the point where he was unable to argue against what we were saying.

Last but not least, we met with MN Senator Amy Klobuchar. Which, considering how our last meeting went was kind of surprising. All of us present were pleasantly surprised at how informed both the Senator and her staff were on the Afghanistan issue. To my knowledge she was the only person we met with who had actually read the full McChrystal report. She seemed willing to support a surge and was just waiting for Obama to give the word. Though once again she was unwilling to call out the President. Interesting tidbit. The Senator is a big .Vince Flynn fan and has already read his latest book.

The Democrats we met with were very interested in not offending their veteran constituents but were at least as equally interested in not appearing to be more hawkish than the President. And in fairness to them it is not their place to answer for President Obama's dithering. For the most part none of the VFF members I went into meetings with pushed the issue from that angle either. What multiple members did push for was for Congress to call General McChrystal to the Hill so that they could sort the issue out for themselves. Many members did seem interested in doing this but again, the feeling is that letting McChrystal go on public record will undermine Obama. I think in every meeting I participated in at some point we were told how, "how proud I am that the President is taking his time deliberating on this issue".

There is a palpable fear on the Hill of doing anything to make Obama look weak on Afghanistan. When push comes to shove Obama has everyone toeing the party line that HE is the decision maker. Obama makes the call, not some General and that everyone else just needs to be quiet. That was my take on the subject from several meetings anyway. Multiple times we got to the point in the conversation where staffers or the Representative/Senator started to mention McChrystal staying within the chain of command and that he should not be speaking publicly. Which, to an extent I can understand. But I also got the sense that the elephant in the room was Obama's dithering/indecisiveness and that nobody really wanted to take the position that McChrystal just needs to be a good soldier and keep his mouth shut.

Overall the actual meetings went about how I thought they would. For the most part the politicians/staffers wanted to stay on the talking points and were prepared for a meeting on those grounds. Well anyone can go in there and deliver talking points. The reason we want vets to go is to testify about our experiences. To deliver our stories that no one else in the world can give. When I had the chance to speak that's exactly what I did and it obviously knocked many of them off their game.

When I explained that I was sitting in a tent in Iraq with six local Iraqi interpreters the day that Harry Reid went on TV and said, "This war is lost". And that those interprets stopped what they were doing and looked at me to explain what he had just said. Because to him, and to too many people in politics and on Capitol Hill those are just words meant for domestic consumption. Well those Iraqis and I know that those words are a death sentence. I know that those words prolong the war and cause more American body bags to be filled. I know that those words aid the enemy because the enemy is not trying to break our military. They are trying to break our will. When our politicians go on TV and demonstrate weakness they drive regular Iraqi's and Afghani's against us.

When I was able to get them off of their talking points and they were in the position of having to address what I was saying it seemed that they at least had to think about it. Not that it necessarily changed any minds, but at least they had to leave their comfort zones for a little while.

It was also fun to turn around the 'I think we can agree' game with a little logic bomb. During the course of conversation we often covered thoughts on air strikes, counterterror vs. counterinsurgency, why the surge in Iraq worked, etc. etc. and we'd generally come to some sort of agreement. So later on I would return to those points and started asking if we can agree that the current situation is not working, and we can agree that reducing troop levels probably won't help, then what does that leave? Does anyone really think that drone strikes are really the way do this?? They generally didn't have an answer for that and that was kind of fun.

Overall the event was fairly successful I think. We were of course overshadowed by the TEA Partiers and the events at Ft Hood. And as I said earlier, I agree with the TEA Party message, but I do not agree with how many of them behaved that day. Once they started running around the various office buildings I would have to wait until they were gone and calmly explain that I was not with them before anyone was really willing to hear what I was there to talk about. I have no problem with people going to see their representatives but they are doing themselves a disservice getting into shouting matches with staffers. I mention this only because it effected how Vets For Freedom members were received once the TEA partiers showed up. I am proud of how our members conducted themselves with professionalism and pride

Disgrace

Fucking Disgrace

Disgrace by itself was simply not strong enough for this.

The interim government of Honduras has yielded to international pressure and agreed to allow the return to power of Manuel Zelaya, the ousted President who was toppled in a military coup four months ago.

The breakthrough came after renewed pressure from senior US officials who travelled to Honduras this week for a last-ditch effort to end the crisis...

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, praised the agreement.

"We were very clearly on the side of the restoration of the constitutional order, and that includes the elections," Mrs Clinton told reporters during a visit to Pakistan...

US President Barack Obama cut some aid to Honduras after the coup but had been criticised by some Latin American countries for not doing more to force the de facto government to back down.

The collapse of talks last week prompted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to dispatch the US delegation to push again for a negotiated settlement.

A negotiated settlement? There was no negotiation. It was put "our" guy back or else. "Our" guy being Chavez junior. Way to go Obama. You interfered in an internal matter, which I'm not sure why I thought that you didn't like doing that *cough*IRAN*cough*. You bullied a "tiny" country to reinstate a fellow lefty and made Chavez, Ortega and Fidel's days.

You got what you wanted. And that tells us all a lot.

Library of Congress report

Devastating Mary A. O'Grady Column

What does it say about Mr. Obama's respect for the separation of powers that he would instruct Mrs. Clinton to punish an independent court because it did not issue the ruling he wanted?

Since June 28, the U.S. has been pressuring Honduras to put Mr. Zelaya back in the presidency. But neither Mrs. Clinton's spurious "rule of law" claims or the tire iron handed her by Mr. Obama to use against this little country have been effective in convincing the Honduran judiciary that it ought to abandon its constitution.

It seems that Mrs. Clinton is peeved with the court because it ruled that restoring Mr. Zelaya to power under a proposal drafted by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias is unconstitutional. Thus, the State Department decided that in defense of the rule of law it would penalize the members of the Supreme Court for their interpretation of their constitution. Fourteen justices had their U.S. visas pulled.

Since the U.S. already had yanked the visa of the 15th member of the court, the one who signed the arrest warrant for Mr. Zelaya, this action completed Mrs. Clinton's assault on the independence of a foreign democracy's highest court. The lesson, presumably, is that judges in small foreign nations are required to accept America's interpretation of their own laws.

Again. Disgrace.

Not so random thought