Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

True! Granted as smc points out, those are just snippets of those speaches. However one can not deny that there is a lot of, at the least, distrust between obama and the military. I have spoken with quite a number of military personnel, including dozens of officers. Almost all of them were extremely concerned and distrustful about having to serve under obama. obama has repeatedly promised to slash the military budget (Now mind you, I believe there is a lot of overspending in the military.) also he has shown blatant disregard to military decessions - for example, he wouldn't give the order for the Navy SEAL snipers to shoot the Somali pirates and it took obama about three months of "study" to approve a fraction of the requested troop increase.

A lot of the rank and file I've spoken to are concerned about the possibility of being ordered to engage in oerations against US civilians (hence NDAA). I have always refered them to the decesion that was passed down from the Nurrenberg Trials, that a soldier does not have to follow an order which is illegal.

Hearsay evidence of a "distrustful" military aside, it seems to me that independent of whether it is Obama or someone else, having a president who does not routinely say or imply (as Bush did, and as Romney does) that he will simply go along with whatever the "commanders on the ground" advise is not only what the Founding Fathers intended by having a civilian-led military, but a good system of checks and balances. I state that without taking a particular side on shooting Somali pirates or increasing troop sizes, which are certainly questions about which thoughtful consideration could certainly be given.

As for operations against U.S. civilians and the NDAA, I think it's safe to say that Obama is simply continuing George W. Bush's terrible policies. For instance, the the Obama administration argues that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution permits the detentions of United States citizens. Bush and Obama applied AUMF to authorize their use of indefinite detentions around the world. The difference today? NDAA codifies this into law.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

Hearsay evidence of a "distrustful" military aside, it seems to me that independent of whether it is Obama or someone else, having a president who does not routinely say or imply (as Bush did, and as Romney does) that he will simply go along with whatever the "commanders on the ground" advise is not only what the Founding Fathers intended by having a civilian-led military, but a good system of checks and balances. I state that without taking a particular side on shooting Somali pirates or increasing troop sizes, which are certainly questions about which thoughtful consideration could certainly be given.

As for operations against U.S. civilians and the NDAA, I think it's safe to say that Obama is simply continuing George W. Bush's terrible policies. For instance, the the Obama administration argues that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution permits the detentions of United States citizens. Bush and Obama applied AUMF to authorize their use of indefinite detentions around the world. The difference today? NDAA codifies this into law.

I have heard it argued that the "Comander in Chief" title given to the Presidency is outdated and should be removed. That military decesions should be left to the military. As a student of Clausewitz, I believe the military should always be subject to the will of the political leadershi of the State. That being said, I could be open to discussions about whether that means giving one man (i.e. the President) with that power or give it to a board of oversight, the membership of which would be decided on by Congress.

I loved how these Civil Rights advocacy groups raised such a fuss about Bush's warrantless wiretapping when firstly that paticular program was never stopped. That means that it is still ongoing to this very day. Secondly, ever since the late 60's (if I rember the report correctly) all new telephone line that were installed to people's houses were automatically tapped.

[ila]

Originally Posted by tslust

I have heard it argued that the "Comander in Chief" title given to the Presidency is outdated and should be removed. That military decesions should be left to the military. As a student of Clausewitz, I believe the military should always be subject to the will of the political leadershi of the State. That being said, I could be open to discussions about whether that means giving one man (i.e. the President) with that power or give it to a board of oversight, the membership of which would be decided on by Congress...

There must always be civilian oversight of a country's military. That oversight must be the government. As for decision making military decisions should be broken into two areas, strategic and tactical. Strategic decisions are for politicians to make whereas tactical decisions must remain in the hands of a military. Politicians are the ones that have to strategically guide a country and its policies and that is why they must make the strategic decisions. Most politicians have no idea of military planning and execution and that is why the military must be allowed to make tactical decisions without interference from politicians. In other words policiticians make plans (strategy) and the military carries out those plans (tactics). Neither is in a position to do properly do the other's job.

[GRH]

I don't have the official source to back this up, because as I recall, I heard a snippet on some news program (may have been radio or television). At any rate, it said that in terms of polling, President Obama is actually leading Romney among the military demographic.

A number of comments need to be made regarding this, though. In terms of troops on the ground, Obama's policies are of course going to be popular. We've effectively withdrawn from Iraq (as opposed to indefinite occupation that some have suggested). We are also on a time table for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Whether these are wise decisions from a strategic standpoint, I will leave to others to debate. But in terms of being a troop on the ground who is putting your life on the line everyday-- how could these NOT be popular policy stances? Especially when the overall national sentiment towards these foreign misadventures is that we've spent too much time and money in these backward shitholes and that it's time to come home. Add to that the fact that Obama made the order to assasinate Bin Laden, and it just adds credibility to his role as Commander and Chief.

Now among military brass, I can certainly see Obama as being less popular. They are the ones tasked with trying to find cost savings in today's era of austerity. They are the ones who will see pet projects, platoons, etc. cut. My own opinion is that austerity should be shared at ALL levels-- including national defense. But in terms of talking points, military brass are probably going to lean towards the party that says they will spare the military any cuts (in favor of wrenching cost savings out of middle class "entitlements").

[TracyCoxx]

I know you all hate Limbaugh, but what he says here is exactly right.

Limbaugh:
So the regime is using the Department of Homeland Security to punish Obama's enemies. I saw a great phrase at a blog post on PJ Media: Obama went "Soviet" on Arizona. Let me read to you from that post. "This is a political maneuver designed to punish Arizona, which" had the audacity... I mean, what is this really all about? Obama is not enforcing immigration law. Arizona is falling apart. A responsible governor says, "All right, well, we're going to write some laws to give us the ability to enforce the border ourselves."

So Barack Obama turned around and sued Arizona. "Who in the hell do you think YOU are? You want to enforce immigration law? Okay, let me show you what's going to happen to you. I'm going to tell you we're not going to enforce immigration law and I'm going to take you all the way to the Supreme Court, and I don't care what happens to your state!" And that is exactly what happens. And so Arizona is being punished. Now, they might want to say this is political punishment but it has real world consequences.

Crime. Property value loss. Economic calamity.

It's an absolute disaster. So while this may be traditional ol' political punishment, there are horrible real world consequences attached to it. Arizona is already reeling from the lawlessness on its border with Mexico. And as I said: It's abundantly clear now that Obama has given up winning Arizona. He doesn't care. He's written it off. Now he's going "Soviet" on it to make an example to every other state, by the way. And do not discount that. This is a message to every other state on the border: "The same can happen to you if you try this stunt!

"You go overboard defending your border or you challenge me and how I want to defend the border (or not), and this will happen to you too!" It's good old fashioned, political, Soviet-style intimidation. Barack Obama has kicked Arizona out of whatever is left of the federal government's border enforcement. And in the process, what has Obama -- in real world consequences -- just done here? Obama has sent a special delivery FedEx or UPS to smugglers and traffickers and criminals of all kinds that Arizona is wide open.

Come on in, gang!

Nobody here to stop you!

And not only that, if somebody wearing a police uniform in Arizona does try to stop you, guess what? We're gonna get a phone call from some of our buddies on the ground and guess who's going to jail? The cop! So come on in! Forget New Mexico. Forget California. Forget Texas. Make a beeline for Arizona. We have cleared the decks for you. In fact, we would encourage you to try to get picked up by a cop, because we want the cop punished.

We have people who are going to be spying, making sure that if a cop stops you for any reason whatsoever and demands your papers, he gets his. We're going to make sure we hear about it, and that cop is finished. So come on in! Arizona is wide open for all of you. That's the sucker punch. So this puts the law back on hold. It's a green light to anybody who wants to sneak into Arizona from Mexico all day long.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I know you all hate Limbaugh, but what he says here is exactly right.

Limbaugh:
So the regime is using the Department of Homeland Security to punish Obama's enemies. I saw a great phrase at a blog post on PJ Media: Obama went "Soviet" on Arizona. Let me read to you from that post. "This is a political maneuver designed to punish Arizona, which" had the audacity... I mean, what is this really all about? Obama is not enforcing immigration law. Arizona is falling apart. A responsible governor says, "All right, well, we're going to write some laws to give us the ability to enforce the border ourselves."

So Barack Obama turned around and sued Arizona. "Who in the hell do you think YOU are? You want to enforce immigration law? Okay, let me show you what's going to happen to you. I'm going to tell you we're not going to enforce immigration law and I'm going to take you all the way to the Supreme Court, and I don't care what happens to your state!" And that is exactly what happens. And so Arizona is being punished. Now, they might want to say this is political punishment but it has real world consequences.

Crime. Property value loss. Economic calamity.

It's an absolute disaster. So while this may be traditional ol' political punishment, there are horrible real world consequences attached to it. Arizona is already reeling from the lawlessness on its border with Mexico. And as I said: It's abundantly clear now that Obama has given up winning Arizona. He doesn't care. He's written it off. Now he's going "Soviet" on it to make an example to every other state, by the way. And do not discount that. This is a message to every other state on the border: "The same can happen to you if you try this stunt!

"You go overboard defending your border or you challenge me and how I want to defend the border (or not), and this will happen to you too!" It's good old fashioned, political, Soviet-style intimidation. Barack Obama has kicked Arizona out of whatever is left of the federal government's border enforcement. And in the process, what has Obama -- in real world consequences -- just done here? Obama has sent a special delivery FedEx or UPS to smugglers and traffickers and criminals of all kinds that Arizona is wide open.

Come on in, gang!

Nobody here to stop you!

And not only that, if somebody wearing a police uniform in Arizona does try to stop you, guess what? We're gonna get a phone call from some of our buddies on the ground and guess who's going to jail? The cop! So come on in! Forget New Mexico. Forget California. Forget Texas. Make a beeline for Arizona. We have cleared the decks for you. In fact, we would encourage you to try to get picked up by a cop, because we want the cop punished.

We have people who are going to be spying, making sure that if a cop stops you for any reason whatsoever and demands your papers, he gets his. We're going to make sure we hear about it, and that cop is finished. So come on in! Arizona is wide open for all of you. That's the sucker punch. So this puts the law back on hold. It's a green light to anybody who wants to sneak into Arizona from Mexico all day long.

You've outdone yourself, TracyCoxx. This is some of the most asinine bullshit you've ever posted. I suppose you will now tell us that every individual state in the United States should conduct its own foreign policy.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

So Barack Obama turned around and sued Arizona. "Who in the hell do you think YOU are? You want to enforce immigration law? Okay, let me show you what's going to happen to you. I'm going to tell you we're not going to enforce immigration law and I'm going to take you all the way to the Supreme Court, and I don't care what happens to your state!" And that is exactly what happens. And so Arizona is being punished. Now, they might want to say this is political punishment but it has real world consequences.

Crime. Property value loss. Economic calamity.

It's an absolute disaster. So while this may be traditional ol' political punishment, there are horrible real world consequences attached to it. Arizona is already reeling from the lawlessness on its border with Mexico. And as I said: It's abundantly clear now that Obama has given up winning Arizona. He doesn't care. He's written it off. Now he's going "Soviet" on it to make an example to every other state, by the way. And do not discount that. This is a message to every other state on the border: "The same can happen to you if you try this stunt!

"You go overboard defending your border or you challenge me and how I want to defend the border (or not), and this will happen to you too!" It's good old fashioned, political, Soviet-style intimidation. Barack Obama has kicked Arizona out of whatever is left of the federal government's border enforcement. And in the process, what has Obama -- in real world consequences -- just done here? Obama has sent a special delivery FedEx or UPS to smugglers and traffickers and criminals of all kinds that Arizona is wide open.

Come on in, gang!

Nobody here to stop you!

And not only that, if somebody wearing a police uniform in Arizona does try to stop you, guess what? We're gonna get a phone call from some of our buddies on the ground and guess who's going to jail? The cop! So come on in! Forget New Mexico. Forget California. Forget Texas. Make a beeline for Arizona. We have cleared the decks for you. In fact, we would encourage you to try to get picked up by a cop, because we want the cop punished.

We have people who are going to be spying, making sure that if a cop stops you for any reason whatsoever and demands your papers, he gets his. We're going to make sure we hear about it, and that cop is finished. So come on in! Arizona is wide open for all of you. That's the sucker punch. So this puts the law back on hold. It's a green light to anybody who wants to sneak into Arizona from Mexico all day long.[/I]

If I were Governor Brewer, I would send a leter to obama. Telling him that as long as his administration continues it's stance against the State of Arizona members of the Department of Justice (FBI, ATF, INS, ICE) are not welcome in the State of Arizona. Furthermore, all tax revenue from the State of Arizona, destined for the Federal government, will be withheald.

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

If I were Governor Brewer, I would send a leter to obama. Telling him that as long as his administration continues it's stance against the State of Arizona members of the Department of Justice (FBI, ATF, INS, ICE) are not welcome in the State of Arizona. Furthermore, all tax revenue from the State of Arizona, destined for the Federal government, will be withheald.

Since making asinine suggestions and posting asinine political bullshit seems to be the order of the day, why not have Arizona secede from the union, compensate all of its residents who wish to move to the United States with a subsidy to help them get settled in a neighboring state that respects U.S. law, and be done with the craziness once for all?

Seriously ... the two of you support the idea of giving a law-enforcement agency the right to stop anyone, based on how they look, and demand to see papers? I know TracyCoxx will try to dodge answering the question, but the analogy cries out for it: what about stopping Jewish-looking people in Nazi Germany?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by tslust

If I were Governor Brewer, I would send a leter to obama. Telling him that as long as his administration continues it's stance against the State of Arizona members of the Department of Justice (FBI, ATF, INS, ICE) are not welcome in the State of Arizona. Furthermore, all tax revenue from the State of Arizona, destined for the Federal government, will be withheald.

Might as well. Obama has made it clear Arizona can not count on federal law enforcement. Why pay for it?

The notion that every state in the US should conduct its own foreign policy is ridiculous and can in no way be derived from the events in Arizona which seeks only to enforce federal immigration laws.

And the analogy of stopping Jewish-looking people in Nazi Germany is again ridiculous. It wasn't illegal jewish immigrants that Nazi Germany had a problem with, it was it's own jewish population they had problems with.

Apparently the opposition to the Arizona immigration policy is based on problems unrelated to Arizona immigration policy?

The real question is, why is the Obama administration actively trying to turn Arizona into a sanctuary state. I don't know, maybe it's happened before, but I can't recall... Has any other US president taken revenge on a state at anywhere near the level that Obama has against Arizona?