By Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
One of the ways we decide how sincere a witness is down at the courthouse is seeing what he said about a topic before there was anything really at stake and comparing that to what he’s saying now. Watching the scandalous political corruption trial here in Richmond for the past few days, I’ve seen plenty of “I said one thing then, but I’m saying something else now” from the various witnesses taking the stand. Take Governor Bob McDonnell’s friend and stockbroker, John Piscitelli, who upon being asked about a particular sleazy scheme to avoid the state’s gift disclosure laws –cooked up apparently by Virginia’s First Lady — answered that he was not “uncomfortable” with the deal. When his prior grand jury testimony was pushed in his face, the securities peddler cleared his throat, straightened his tie, looked around, and then remembered that , lo and behold, the aborted deal to dump stock right before the disclosure deadline and then buy it back did indeed make him feel ” uncomfortable.” Wonderful thing, a trial.
Pity we can’t put politicians on trial simply for being politicians — especially those who are simply flitting around the flame of geopolitical power hoping to catch it for themselves. Take House Speaker and Republican Party leader John Boehner, for example. The burgeoning crisis in northern Iraq caused by the jihadist crazed theocrats of ISIS has come front and center to the world stage. Crashing in from Syria, the fundamentalists, dedicated to establishing a new world order based on a universal muslim caliphate governed by sharia law, have rounded up non-muslim Iraqis, forced them to convert to Islam, and then quite ceremoniously beheaded them or when the swords got too dull, simply stolen their possessions and run the “infidels” into to the mountains. A direct by-product of the unnecessary War in Iraq II by Bush II, the teetering country is now firmly ensconced in civil war with some added religious crusaders to spice the mix.
Seeing American interests and service personnel directly at risk from the full-out crisis and fearing a genocide of ethnic groups as well as Christian Iraqis, President Obama ordered a humanitarian airlift in conjunction with the British, and authorized American air power to perform limited bombing runs to dissuade ISIS from consolidating gains and advancing on even more Iraq cities and infrastructure. In a rare show of something approaching solidarity, most Republican lawmakers expressed satisfaction with the President’s moves though predictably it was “too little to late” in the minds of some GOP Svengalis who pulled the “told you so” card from the bottom of the deck.
Chief among the critics was Speaker John Boehner who loves him some bombing calling it “appropriate,” but hates him some Obama policy saying in a prepared statement that he is quite dismayed there isn’t one:
I am dismayed by the ongoing absence of a strategy for countering the grave threat ISIS poses to the region.Vital national interests are at stake, yet the White House has remained disengaged despite warnings from Iraqi leaders, Congress, and even members of its own administration. Such parochial thinking only emboldens the enemy and squanders the sacrifices Americans have made. The president needs a long-term strategy — one that defines success as completing our mission, not keeping political promises — and he needs to build the support to sustain it. If the president is willing to put forward such a strategy, I am ready to listen and work with him.
Well, “work(ing) with him” apparently doesn’t include attending a White House meeting last week on what the Speaker claims is a “grave threat.” No word on what was discussed at that meeting, but at a prior meeting on the topic in June attended by Republican hawks Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Arizona), Graham told reporters that the briefing “scared the hell out of him.” (You think Hell would have a better place to be anyway). McCain was no less “measured” in his commentary calling on the President to replace the entire national security brain trust.
No mention from these three prized elephants about what destabilized this seething caldron of a country in the first place (the late, great War on Weapons of Mass Destruction) or the lack of “exit strategy” from Bush II for this lark of a war that was plopped down on Obama’s desk on his first day in office, and nary a bit of grandfatherly advice for the man many Republicans consider “in over his head” to handle world affairs about how to manage the crisis without a full-scale ground and air assault on the tinder box constructed by the Bush-Cheney team.
But Speaker Boehner and his cronies were not always so critical of the President’s plans in Iraq. In fact, when it suited him, the man with the perpetual tan seemed downright laudatory. In a carefully worded statement on Iraq released on February 27, 2009, Boehner praised the President’s policy to extricate American forces from the quagmire even agreeing with the timeline approach to disengagement and saying the plan provided ultimate flexibility to handle future crises caused by the likes of ISIS.
The plan put forward by President Obama continues our strategy of bringing troops home from Iraq as they succeed in stabilizing the country. I believe he has outlined a responsible approach that retains maximum flexibility to reconsider troop levels and to respond to changes in the security environment should circumstances on the ground warrant.
A far cry from the sentiments of a man who recently said that Obama was “taking a nap” on Iraq.
So what are we to make of the hue and cry about incompetence and inattentiveness of Obama in dealing with Iraq from the man who praised him for the strategy in the first place? Maybe Speaker Boehner should clear his throat,straighten his tie, look around the room and tell us how he really feels. Now it’s your turn to tell us:
Source: The Hill
~Mark Esposito Weekend Contributor
By the way and for better or worse, the views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays of art are solely the author’s decision and responsibility. No infringement of intellectual property rights is intended and will be remedied upon notice from the owner. Fair use is however asserted for such inclusions of quotes, excerpts, photos, art, and the like.
John Oliver,
Non-partisan ACLU? It really doesn’t take much for this blog to turn into a theater for the absurd. Wow!
========================
It happens when you start using your imagination bias (cultural amygdala).
Just read the text.
Eric
…
That ain’t cheap by any stretch, but it also ain’t 3 trillion dollars.
=========================
That is the problem with wishful thinking “cost estimations” which are actually phony accounting methods like those that brought Arthur Anderson down once upon a time.
The costs are ongoing (we are still bombing, shooting, and spending money there … e.g. the largest embassy in the world, etc.) and will accumulate over the next 30 years in terms of interest, replacement of plant and equipment, medical costs, and maintaining bases.
Further, since the entire region has been destabilized ISIS type storms will arise for decades.
These are the results of dumb ass oil wars conducted for the benefit of Oil-Qaeda at the expense of the American people.
Dredd – the demise of Arthur Anderson had nothing to with cost estimates, it had to do with Enron audits and criminal charges which were later overturned.
Really, you know as much about accounting has you do about social science.
Fix: The next cheapest war by peak year spending was the Spanish American War at 1.1% GDP in 1899.
Annie – I have been gone most of the day and you are still playing the women are victims card. Really?????? Have you no shame!!!!
Dave: “Start out with a premise. US tax payers bought Iraq for $3 Trillion.”
That would be a false premise.
FYI, this is my go-to reference for the Iraq war cost:
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
The CRS report counts the “cumulative total appropriated from the 9/11 [sic] for those war operations, diplomatic operations, and medical care for Iraq and Afghan war veterans”, covering DOD, State/USAID, and VA Medical costs.
The report states all costs for Iraq totaled 805.5 billion dollars through FY2011 and 823.2 billion dollars estimated through FY2012. The report states the DoD-specific total war cost as 757.8 billion through FY2011 and 768.8 billion dollars estimated through FY2012 (last year).
That ain’t cheap by any stretch, but it also ain’t 3 trillion dollars.
Check out the chart on page 21. Note that after the peak of 138.5 billion dollars in FY2008, which paid for the COIN “surge”, the Iraq budget progressively and steeply reduced every year thereafter. Like I said, we don’t permanently peg the cost for our on-going European and Asian deployments at 1941-1945 (and 1950-1953) dollars. The Iraq deployment was going that way, too, at the point we cut it off.
FYI, the FY2008 peak year spending for Iraq was 1% GDP. By that admittedly narrow metric, the only cheaper US wars have been Afghanistan and the Gulf War. The next cheapest war was the Spanish American War at 1.1% GDP in 1899. That fact is not dispositive about the war cost, of course; however, it does illustrate that relative dollar figures don’t look the same as isolated dollar figures.
I wonder, does Professor Turley belong to the ACLU? Anyone know?
Non-partisan ACLU? It really doesn’t take much for this blog to turn into a theater for the absurd. Wow!
Nick Spinelli
“The non partisan ACLU.” One laughs and ceases reading @ that point.
======================
One stops reading when overcome with ones own bias.
They represented the interests of Rush Limbaugh (T-bagger conservative) in his drug charge case in Florida.
Are you saying they will not represent an American because that American is a democrat, independent, or green?
The slicing and dicing of Iraq is undoing what was done early in the century of Oil Wars.
Same with Ukraine machinations.
“The non partisan ACLU.” One laughs and ceases reading @ that point.
John Oliver,
Just to be clear Dredd: was that an indictment of a foreign policy driven by Big Oil corporatism or an indictment of a domestic policy driven by the Environmental lobby? Is there a correlation here?
============================
I am not sure what you are in reference to, but when I refer to “Big Oil corporatism” I use the term Oil-Qaeda.
When I refer to “domestic [environmental] policy” I use the term Oil-Qaeda.
Since the Earth is no longer flat, it is a globe now, in the global warming induced climate change sense, there is not difference between foreign and domestic policy.
Oil-Qaeda told Boehner that cow farts cause all the problems and he believes it still even though he is not a scientist.
Re: John
Most Republicans and Democrats would love two great books titled “Disintegration” by Eugene Robinson and “Medical Apartheid” by Mary Washington.
These books give great fact based examples that you might not know about but may help you understand that not everyone had equal opportunity.
Neither book is political in nature and fact filled!
OH BTW John, in Calcutta and other third world areas, women and children died in the streets from hunger, guess you might not mind if we start looking like those third world countries.
Is this John the same guy who thinks only property owners should be allowed to vote?
Someone is obsessed with other’s COVETING their stuff. What a way to go through life.
************************
In the meantime in Iraq…..
Was that Madison or Franklin who expounded on the government’s duty to set wages?
Every thing and person is a product on the market.
You make yourself marketable or you fail to.
You don’t deserve a wage level simply because you COVET what another person is paid.
Now you sound like striking teachers with their ridiculous demands as they refuse to expose themselves to the forces of competition in the free market, then proceed to pass on their largess in the form off “comparable pay” to the rest of the government workers.
BFM, seriously? I presume you’re a ward of the state or otherwise dependent.
Did your parents teach you to take care of yourself…and others can’t?
Discrimination. Do we discriminate when we marry a wife? Is that the end game. The government tells us whom to love and whom to hate and whom to marry. Was that concept from the writings of Jefferson or Hamilton? I’m a little confused. That sounds like it came from the COVET MASTER, Karl Marx.
We all live with “characteristics.” And I DON’T KNOW ANYONE WHO HASN’T BEEN UNFAIRLY CRITICIZED OR DENIED SOMETHING.
Personally, I went into a clinical depression when I found out I would be denied attendance at Harvard…it was worse when I found out I would never be a multi-millionaire, not to mention billionaire. In boot camp we were called every name in the book; in the Marine Corps, my brother was sent to the “pig farm.” Oops. I got called a name. How about that?
You differentiate between who owns property and who doesn’t and disagree with the fact that the owner’s have a right to use and enjoy their property however they choose – rent to whom they choose, sell to whomever without the government in control and rewarding those who COVET.
You don’t like freedom, because it causes you to force yourself to overcome every obstacle in your life by yourself in order to succeed. You want it all just given to you.
Keep your charity in the private sector. The Constitution does not establish a THEOCRACY that mandates the keeping of anyone’s brother. You destroy incentive and motivation by giving free stuff to anyone. You don’t “keep your brother” you destroy his incentive to take care of himself.
HELP endures but for brief periods. After that it is NOT HELP. We fought the war on poverty and poverty won. What, 50 years now? When is the war over BFM? When is the war over? NEVER, right?
YOU ARE WRONG. WELFARE IS WRONG.
WIC. Hoooooold on there Babalooie! Women, last time I checked, were in control of their own, how shall I say, southern parts. Exactly when, in the American experience, did those southern parts become an appendage of the U.S. government? Here’s a tip. Women, protect them parts. There is no such thing as true love. Oh no. Can’t do that. They’re going to have sexual relations have force the taxpayer to pay for it, right?
Craaaaaaazy. How did you arrive at that? Oh yeah. You COVET.
How did women and welfare recipients ever evolve to the present. What did humans do for 200,000 years before the welfare state? Did that pesky old “God” discriminate against welfare recipients and women and minorities and Billy goats and whatever other victims-du-jour liberals conjure up throughout the history of mankind?
Oops. They took care of themselves.
Ah Ross, but they don’t want to hear that. If a woman commenter would have brought that up, they would be accused of making themselves a victim. It doesn’t matter an iota to them that women work for minimum wage and take care of children. The level of sheer blatant raw greediness of some libertarians is mindboggling. There is absolutely no concern for children, unless they are the unborn, the younger the better, a zygote is best.
Re: John
If the campaign finance system were reformed I might somewhat agree with you on some of your issues.
The non-partisan ACLU has the best campaign finance reform ideas that I’ve heard. Their plan is not total public financing that ban corporations, but a “citizen-represented” system instead of “money represented” system.
The ACLU plan would give the NRA, NAACP, Sierra Club, etc. (or any corporation or group) representation based on the number of members. For example: A group with 1 million “members” would receive more representation in Congress than a group with fewer members giving $1 million “dollars” in campaign contributions.
That way rich campaign contributors wouldn’t covet our votes or our Congress and game the system.
Re: BigFatMike
Well said. Women currently earn $0.77 for every dollar a man earns.
Also until recently, women have been banned in most localities from being fire-fighters, police SWAT team members and serving in special forces positions in the military.
http://www.ACLU.org/Pay-Equity
“Doctor Ross Dog Food Is Dog Gone Good!”
There’s the rationale, nay, imperative for the restricted-vote republic at the American outset.
The point of your right to vote is to communicate with the powers that be, that you COVET the possessions of other people and you want what you “deserve” solely because you COVET.
Great! Now go vote.
Alternatively, you could get a job and buy your own healthcare, retirement, etc.
Oops! Never thought of that, huh? Public school/indoctrination center, right?
Alexis de Tocqueville –
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
America was founded on freedom through self-reliance, not COVETING and obtaining other people’s property through the Marxist welfare state.
Something both Democrats and Republicans might agree on: The United States (to the best of our ability) should stop supporting tyrants and dictators that operate “contrary” to American values. In order to receive American tax dollars those nations have to concretely move in the direction of a “constitutional rule of law” government” that doesn’t abuse their own citizens.
The War on Terror is a great example – we gave money to dictators that not only neglected and abused their own citizens but BLAMED THE USA to divert attention away from those foreign leaders – which led to the 9/11 attacks. Terrorism has always been a political problem, not a military problem.
If we give nations money, they must make reforms in education, fair courts and unity governments. Not always possible but it should be the top goal for the United States.