National Security

During an open and televised hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, House Republicans decided to out a CIA base Benghazi. The hearing, which was in fact nothing more than another witch hunt conducted by Darrell Issa, the following occurred:

Through their outbursts, cryptic language and boneheaded questioning of State Department officials, the committee members left little doubt that one of the two compounds at which the Americans were killed, described by the administration as a “consulate” and a nearby “annex,” was a CIA base. They did this, helpfully, in a televised public hearing.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was the first to unmask the spooks. “Point of order! Point of order!” he called out as a State Department security official, seated in front of an aerial photo of the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, described the chaotic night of the attack. “We’re getting into classified issues that deal with sources and methods that would be totally inappropriate in an open forum such as this.”

Now this may seem rather cryptic, but Dana Milbank goes into further detail, using his knowledge of Washington, to describe what was actually being talked about:

May still be a facility? The plot thickened — and Chaffetz gave more hints. “I believe that the markings on that map were terribly inappropriate,” he said, adding that “the activities there could cost lives.”

Ever since President Obama announced plans to cut defense spending the right has been up in arms, accusing him of "gutting the military". Sadly though the Republicans aren't the only ones upset over it:

Panetta said the U.S. Army would still have about 37,000 soldiers in Europe even after it withdraws two of its four combat brigades - about 7,000 soldiers - as part of efforts to cut $487 billion from the defense budget over the next decade.

"Our military footprint in Europe will remain larger than in any other region of the world," Panetta told a Munich security conference.

"That's not only because the peace and prosperity of Europe is critically important to the United States, but because Europe remains our security partner of choice for military operations and diplomacy around the world. We saw that in Libya last year, and we see it in Afghanistan every day," he said.

We constantly hear politicians talk about the "runaway spending" in Washington and our growing national debt. They want to do things like cut spending on infrastructure, education and health. While all three of those things have a direct influence on our national security, Republicans constantly argue against cutting spending on defense.

Our defense spending is already the biggest part of our budget and we spend more on it than rest of the world combined. We usually get presidents trying to cut defense spending, even Republican ones, but as soon as lawmakers take up the issue pork projects take precedence and the spending ends up going up.

Following up on my previous story about the Hollywood style assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientists, I have been thinking what it would mean if the U.S. actually was involved in it.

First off if we were involved in this bombing there is no way our government would admit it. It would create such a diplomatic nightmare for our country that we have no option but to deny it.

Now having said that, what if we were behind this attack? Well if we were then it shows a difference in policies between the current President and previous one. It would show that George Bush is a man more for a guns-a-blazing, costly war solution, where as Barack Obama is more into the covert, keep it simple and clean approach.

The Obama style approach is one we saw when it came to finally getting Osama bin Laden and when it came to the fall of Gadaffi. The Bush style approach is one we saw in action in Iraq for the past several years. Our country is still paying for that war and almost 4,500 U.S. soldiers paid the ultimate price for.

If I had to make the choice of which way to go, I would take the Obama style any day of the week. It's swift, clean and costs much less in terms of money and life. The other point to make here is that this style of approach may have set Iran's nuclear ambitions back a few years by simply killing one guy. It's not like you can go to Craig's List and just take out an ad for a nuclear scientists. They are hard to come by and now Iran needs to replace this one.

So if the U.S. was behind this assassination, I got to applaud our nation. We finally realized full blown war isn't the only answer to these type of problems. Of course that could change this time next year if President Obama is not given a second term. That's something to think about when heading to the polls this fall.

This is one of those posts where I feel a need to cut through the bullshit out there and call out both sides when it comes to Iraq.

Yesterday President Obama marked the actual end of the Iraq War. There was no aircraft carrier landing or "mission accomplished" banner. Instead it was done in a very dignified way. Sadly though the troops aren't coming home to the type of celebration and parades that this country experienced in August of 1945 during VJ Day. Instead they will just come home, be greeted by loved ones and then get to enjoy a horrible economy.

That welcoming home of our troops should come as no shock. The most Americans had to sacrifice for Iraq was either fighting in the war or having a loved one fight the war. During the war Americans saw their taxes go down at the cost of things like protective gear for our soldiers. Republicans kept pushing for lower taxes as well - something that never happened during war time in our countries history. It's no wonder Bush had to keep raising the national debt level.

But I don't want to focus on that. Instead I want to talk about what brought us to the end.

This week both Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz have been on the television blasting President Obama as having lost the war because of this pull out. Either recent history or a need for the facts have escaped both as they fail to mention the December 2011 pull out date was actually set by President Bush. You think that Bush's vice-President would be aware of such a fact, but we live in a time where the attempted zinger against the other party trumps the truth.

I am stealing this from Bob Cesca because I have never read more truer words. Andrew Sullivan:

To rid the world of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Qaddafi within six months: if Obama were a Republican, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now.

Instead the Republicans act like the President is some sort of enemy of the state or they just try to strip him of any credit and give it to others. They really are the lowest of lows in the political spectrum.

The news is full of coverage of the anniversary of 9/11. You can change the channel without being reminded of what happened 10 years ago today. It was one of the most tragic days in American history and one none of us will ever forget.

And while we spend the day remembering this anniversary, let’s not lose sight of what else we lost on this day 10 years ago – America.

Since 9/11 this country has become increasingly more divided. We got a severely broken government that can’t operate due to partisan bickering. We saw the birth of this not long after the attacks 10 years ago. The Bush administration became hell bent on attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, Iraq. People who disagreed with that war were called terrorists or even accused of treason. This wasn’t limited to bars or living rooms. We even heard the vice-President of the country, Dick Cheney, as well as other officials from the administration and politicians use the same harsh language against those opposed to Iraq.

That’s right – 9/11 changed America and not for the better. We became a nation where disagreeing with the President was tantamount to wanting to overthrow the government. We had a government turn to the same thinking as the Middle Eastern governments we were going after. Freedom started a quick death on that day and America is worst off because of it.

We're already fighting wars in Iraq, Afghanistan/Pakistan and Syria, but now it appears the U.S. has entered a fourth theater:

The Obama administration has intensified the American covert war in Yemen, exploiting a growing power vacuum in the country to strike at militant suspects with armed drones and fighter jets, according to American officials.

The acceleration of the American campaign in recent weeks comes amid a violent conflict in Yemen that has left the government in Sana, a United States ally, struggling to cling to power. Yemeni troops that had been battling militants linked to Al Qaeda in the south have been pulled back to the capital, and American officials see the strikes as one of the few options to keep the militants from consolidating power.

On Friday, American jets killed Abu Ali al-Harithi, a midlevel Qaeda operative, and several other militant suspects in a strike in southern Yemen. According to witnesses, four civilians were also killed in the airstrike. Weeks earlier, drone aircraft fired missiles aimed at Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who the United States government has tried to kill for more than a year. Mr. Awlaki survived.

How many wars can our country stomach, both financially and mentally? We're already talking about the enormous federal deficit, but we don't have any problem launching air strikes in other countries. These strikes cost hundreds of millions of dollars and is money we never get back, unlike bailing out the auto industry.

With the news that the Obama administration won’t release the images of a dead Osama bin Laden, Sarah Palin once again takes to the Twitter to prove she is totally wrong on national security:

 

So why is this the wrong thing to do? Well let’s ask the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers:

"The risks of release outweigh the benefits," Rogers said. "Conspiracy theorists around the world will just claim the photos are doctored anyway, and there is a real risk that releasing the photos will only serve to inflame public opinion in the Middle East."

"Imagine how the American people would react if Al Qaeda killed one of our troops or military leaders, and put photos of the body on the Internet," Rogers continued. "Osama bin Laden is not a trophy - he is dead and let's now focus on continuing the fight until Al Qaeda has been eliminated."

Spot on! The images would turn into propaganda that in turn will help make Osama more of a martyr to the extremists. How does trying to build unity amongst al Qaeda and other terrorists help our cause? It doesn’t, but for Sarah Palin, that just doesn’t make sense.