|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: October 16, 2015, 06:17:29 PM » |
|
________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 10-16-2015
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________
Daily Digest
Oct. 16, 2015
THE FOUNDATION
“The powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce.” —Joseph Story, 1833
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
What Does Obama Aim to Accomplish in Afghanistan?1
By Nate Jackson
On Thursday, Barack Obama announced a major revision to his plan to withdraw virtually all American troops from Afghanistan by the end of his presidency. Instead, he will keep 5,500 troops there into 2017 and maintain the current force of 9,800 through “most of 2016.” But for a man who clearly doesn’t believe in American leadership in the world or defending our interests abroad, what does he intend to accomplish by leaving our men and women in harm’s way?
If the U.S. has interests in securing victory in Afghanistan — and it does — Obama’s move is at least a step back in the right direction. It appears he at least (partially) listened to his generals, which might be a first. Obama is not known for being persuaded by evidence. And perhaps he learned a little something from his disastrous choices in Iraq.
On the other hand, if his move is as half-hearted as we think it is, he’s putting American lives on the line in a political concession meant to leave the problem for the next president. Remember that Obama’s primary concern is always himself, and the only reason for any of his decisions is his own political benefit.
“As you are all well aware,” he declared, “I do not support the idea of endless war.” Again, he offers the false choice between his way or “endless war.” There are other options.
After nearly seven years of his determination to “end the war responsibly,” even he admits Afghanistan has slid into Iraq-like chaos. “Afghan forces are still not as strong as they need to be,” he said Thursday. “Meanwhile, the Taliban has made gains2, particularly in rural areas, and can still launch deadly attacks in cities, including Kabul.”
It’s not only the Taliban. The Washington Post reports3, “al-Qaeda appears to have staked out new ground in Afghanistan, far from the group’s mountain enclaves to the northeast.” And here we thought Obama had al-Qaida “on the run.”
In fact, as the American Enterprise Institute’s Frederick Kagan writes4, “There was no meaningful al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan when Barack Obama took office. There will likely be al Qaeda strategic bases there when he leaves. That is failure by any standard.”
Given all of that, let’s review some of Obama’s previous statements on Afghanistan.
In 2008, he said, “Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. … And that’s why, as president, I will make the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.”
Yet even in his 2009 announcement of a surge in Afghanistan, Obama promised a departure date — hardly a sign of it being a “top priority” or the right message for a “war that we have to win.”
He abandoned Iraq5 to the Islamic State, but his focus on Afghanistan clearly didn’t work. And the words “win” or “victory” did not appear in his remarks6 yesterday.
In 2011, he was still bent on withdrawal, all while declaring success. “We are starting this drawdown from a position of strength,” he said. “We take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding. … These long wars will come to a responsible end.”
And in December 2014, he echoed that boast: “Our combat mission in Afghanistan will be over this month, and our war in Afghanistan will come to a responsible end.”
He did, in Thursday’s announcement, begin by repeating his “responsible end” rhetoric. He also promised our men and women in uniform, “I do not send you into harm’s way lightly.” We wish we could believe that.
Now that he has announced what is little more than a policy of treading water, a “responsible end” will come from the next administration — which we hope is one willing to take up the mantle of American leadership, knowing full well it holds the well being of soldiers and the nation in its hands.
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
Second Republican Throws Clinton a Lifeline7
Can it be this hard to provide a consistent rationale for the formation of the House Select Committee on Benghazi and the subsequent uncovering of Hillary Clinton’s malfeasance? Evidently it is for some Republicans. Just two weeks after Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy torched his own bid for the speakership with boneheaded remarks8 about the effect the committee was having on Clinton’s poll numbers, another Republican gave an in-kind donation to the next Clinton campaign ad. “This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton,” said Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY). “After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not. I think that’s the way Washington works. But you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.”
Is there a political angle to the committee’s work? Of course. But it’s definitely not the primary angle, and Republicans have a far better rationale to present to the public. Hillary Clinton denied security requests for Americans serving in Benghazi, blamed the whole episode on a YouTube video to bolster Barack Obama’s “al-Qaida is on the run” political narrative before the 2012 election — practically spitting on the graves of four dead Americans — and covered it all up in part with her private email server. In other words, it’s political because she made it so. Has it hurt her poll numbers? Yes, but that’s because she’s a liar, and because voters can tell the difference between real malfeasance on her part and a political witch hunt.
And yet the net effect of McCarthy’s and now Hanna’s comments is to give credence to Clinton’s cries of victimhood. As she declared in the debate Tuesday, “[The Benghazi] committee is basically an arm of the Republican National Committee. It is a partisan vehicle … to drive down my poll numbers.” Look for Hanna’s comments to show up alongside McCarthy’s in another campaign ad9 for the Democrat frontrunner.
World-Renowned Physicist Breaks With Obama on Climate10
Freeman Dyson, one of the world’s foremost astrophysicists, doesn’t always see eye to eye with his fellow liberals when it comes to global warming. He’s been studying the climate for a quarter of a century, so his prodigious experience has helped shape his views on the environment. In a forward to a new paper by former IPCC member Indur Goklany, titled “Carbon Dioxide: The good news11,” Dyson reiterated his evidence-based belief that “carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does far more good than harm.” He added, “I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.” |
