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.
Ross,
I’ve never been a firefighter (outside of the Navy) or a member of SWAT (outside of the Navy) so I’ll respond to your examples with respect to the Navy.
I was a Chief Petty Officer during the transition when women were being stationed onboard warships. Prior to that, women had been stationed only on non-combatants and usually from the officer corps beginning in division officer roles. There was never any doubt a woman had the mental aptitude for the various shipboard responsibilities; the most significant performance gap was in the physical demands.
Immediately, we needed to recalibrate our standards to accommodate the differences. Assignments that would typically require one man to perform now had to take into account the need to assign two women. If I only had one woman then I would have to assign another man to assist which is of course consuming two resources for a task meant for one. Eventually it became clear the most physically demanding tasks wouldn’t be assigned to women; this began to effect unit cohesion, especially when those tasks meant a senior male had to do the work for a subordinate female.
Is every woman physically inferior to all men? No. Would I have to take into consideration the abilities of each and every man on work assignments? Absolutely. There are two notable differences: 1. It was the exception rather than the rule a woman could outperform a man or that a man couldn’t handle the task. 2. In a division of all men, they would work more as one unit and in a mixed division; they tended to form factions. This latter point had an impact beyond the division level as the women were berthed in one compartment regardless of department or division. This meant issues affecting one person, in one workcenter, in one division in one department were now commonly an issue affecting the entire ship. What would normally be managed at the lowest level became an issue in front of the XO or CO.
Good order and discipline? The dynamics of this military tradition were in complete disarray.
Annie speaks truth – anyone can contact their local fire department or nearest police SWAT unit and ask “how many female fire fighters or SWAT team members they have?” The answer will likely be “0” anywhere in the USA.
If they won’t comply, you can file a Freedom of Information Act to make them comply with the law to reveal those records.
Nick Spinelli,
Did you know the ACLU was supported by Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman and General Douglas MacArthur?
American governmemt is a “due process” system, so the ACLU is actually more conservative than Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Cons in adhering to James Madison’s due process model.
Most would call that non-partisan!
Mark Esposito,
Of course we had an “exit strategy”. It’s the same “exit strategy” we used for our past regime changes: transform an enemy into a partner.
To wit, from the welcome statement on the US Embassy in Baghdad website:
It’s apparent that you, like others here, you’ve been bamboozled by the prevalent false narrative against Operation Iraqi Freedom. The truth is OIF was right on the law and justified on the policy. The explanation for OIF is straightforward. See http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html .
Excerpt:
Q: Was Operation Iraqi Freedom a strategic blunder or a strategic victory?
A: OIF was a strategic victory.
President Bush handed OIF to President Obama having resolved the festering Saddam problem (none too soon, according to the Duelfer Report), revitalized international enforcement in the defining international enforcement of the post-Cold War, and proved the mettle of American leadership and devastated the terrorists with the Counterinsurgency “Surge”. The emerging pluralistic, liberalizing post-Saddam Iraq provided the US with a keystone “strategic partner” to reform the region.
Obama should have built upon the hard-won foundational progress made under Bush in geopolitically critical Iraq. However, instead of staying the course like President Eisenhower stayed the course from President Truman, Obama committed the strategic blunder of bungling the SOFA negotiation with Iraq and abandoning the Bush Freedom Agenda. The premature departure of US forces removed America’s protection at the same time Iraq’s vicinity was growing dangerously unstable as the Arab Spring disintegrated, particularly in neighboring Syria. In the singular pivotal moment that sure-handed American leadership could have changed the course of history, Obama’s feckless ‘lead from behind’ approach to the Arab Spring, instead, opened great gaps for the terrorists to resurge. Iraq is suffering the consequences.
Misinformation and mischaracterization have distorted the public’s understanding of the context, stakes, and achievements of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement that President Bush carried forward from President Clinton and the ground-breaking peace operations by the US military in post-Saddam Iraq. The corrupted public perception of the Iraq mission has enabled Obama’s elementary, catastrophic errors, undermined the enforcement of international norms, and curtailed the further development of peace operations.
Security is the necessary condition for securing and building the peace, and under the umbrella of vital American security, Iraq had turned the corner when Bush handed OIF over to Obama.
. . .
President Bush was right to enforce the Gulf War ceasefire and then stay in Iraq to secure the peace the same way the US stayed to secure the peace in Europe and Asia after World War 2. When Bush left office, the Iraq mission was a success.
President Obama was wrong to leave Iraq prematurely. America’s protection was needed for the continued progression of Iraq’s pluralistic liberal reform and constructive role in the Middle East and the welfare of the Iraqi people. Instead, the feared danger of Obama’s feckless ‘lead from behind’ approach to the Arab Spring and irresponsible exit from Iraq is being realized.
Reblogged this on sea-swoon.
rafflaw,
Regarding Korea, the Iraq, Korea analogy is imperfect. Our Korea nation-building is more closely analogous to our Germany nation-building with their cross-border ‘evil twins’. With both N/S Korea and W/E Germany, the countries were split into heavily armed sides. In Germany’s case, the whole continent was split, let alone a peninsula. The difference is the DPRK hasn’t collapsed like the DDR.
One can argue East Germany’s dissolution supports that the German character was inherently amenable to American nation-building. From that standpoint, though, north Korea highlights the efficacy of American nation-building.
The resilience and alien character of north Korea supports the widely held entry belief that Koreans are not of the West. Which is to say, American nation building success was at least as unlikely for Korea as for Iraq. Yet it worked.
The key to our success with Korea is Ike made the critical decision to stay the course despite inheriting Korea still at war and in far worse condition than the Iraq that Obama inherited from Bush in 2009. Over time, Korea has rewarded our faith. Certainly, it took longer than 8 years for Korea to reach the condition that Obama praised for Iraq in 2011.
Our nation-building in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East have all been based on American protection from danger. That’s a feature, not a failure; if the problem wasn’t difficult, then US soldiers wouldn’t be needed to address it. Security is the foundation for all other progress.
Steve H. is predictable. Boring.
“poorly written, blatantly biased and, frankly, childish”, i.e., I don’t agree with it.
Another poorly written, blatantly biased and, frankly, childish attack by mespo on Republicans. Embarrassing for Professor Turley.
Does anyone know how “weekend contributors” are chosen? Can’t believe its based on intellectual honesty.
Paul says men are oppressed, so who is crying victim? Big crybabies.
rafflaw,
Regarding Korea, the analogy is imperfect as analogies tend to be. Our Korea nation-building is more closely analogous to our Germany nation-building with their concurrent cross-border ‘evil twins’. If I recall correctly with Germany, both sides were heavily armed and the country was split, too, together with the whole continent, let alone just a peninsula.
The DPRK just hasn’t collapsed like the DDR.
One can argue East Germany’s dissolution demonstrates that the German character was intrinsically amenable to American nation-building in the first place and thus a worthwhile investment on the fundaments.
By the same token, north Korea’s continuing, seemingly anachronistic life highlights the cross-cultural efficacy of American nation-building. The resilience and alien character of north Korea corroborates the initial pessimistic American impression that Korea was a fundamentally poor candidate for American nation-building.
Which is to say, American nation-building was at least as unlikely for Korea as for Iraq. Yet it worked. The key to our success is that Ike made the critical decision to stay the course despite inheriting Korea still at war and in far worse condition than the Iraq that Obama inherited from Bush in 2009. We worked the issues, and over time Korea has rewarded our faith. Certainly, it took a lot longer than 8 years for Korea to reach the condition that Obama praised for Iraq in 2011.
As I said, in our nation-building in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, American security has been the foundation. Everything else follows from our security, including the organic efficacy over time of our social political influence. The extra-national danger for Iraq (which perhaps was boosted by Obama’s feckless Syria, Libya, and other policies) is not the same as the nation-based threats in our European and Asian protective custodies – though all have threatened across the border – but Iraq required American security just the same.
Paul C. Schulte
Annie – I have been gone most of the day and you are still playing the women are victims card. Really?????? Have you no shame!!!!
=========================
The War on Whites includes women doesn’t it?
Nick Spinelli
Paul, You can be gone for decades and that ain’t gonna change.
=====================
Yes, Paul the S and the Politically Incorrect (PI) gang has/have serious brain lock.
AA is one more example of what happens when Oil-Qaeda minions like Enron are calling the shots.
“On June 15, 2002, Andersen was convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding documents related to its audit of Enron, resulting in the Enron scandal. Although the conviction was later reversed by the Supreme Court, the impact of the scandal combined with the findings of criminal complicity ultimately destroyed the firm. Nancy Temple (Andersen Legal Dept.) and David Duncan (Lead Partner for the Enron account) were cited as the responsible managers in this scandal as they had given the order to shred relevant documents. Since the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission cannot accept audits from convicted felons, the firm agreed to surrender its CPA licenses and its right to practice before the SEC on August 31, 2002—effectively putting the firm out of business. It had already started winding down its American operations after the indictment, and many of its accountants joined other firms. The firm sold most of its American operations to KPMG, Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young and Grant Thornton LLP. The damage to Andersen’s reputation also destroyed the viability of the firm’s international practices. Most of them were taken over by the local firms of the other major international accounting firms.
The Andersen indictment also put a spotlight on its faulty audits of other companies, most notably Waste Management, Sunbeam, the Baptist Foundation of Arizona and WorldCom. The subsequent bankruptcy of WorldCom, which quickly surpassed Enron as the then biggest bankruptcy in history (the record is now held by Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual) led to a domino effect of accounting and like corporate scandals that continue to tarnish American business practices.”
Remember when the great accountant, The Donald Rumsfeld, said “we can’t find several trillion dollars” …
If it quacks like a duck it is a donald.
rafflaw,
Regarding Vietnam, one American generation’s episode of failure should not redefine the whole course of modern American leadership.
One generation’s failure should also not corrupt the fundamental American character they pass onto their children, grandchildren, and I guess by now, their great-grandchildren.
The one generation’s failure with Vietnam certainly should not have repeated with Iraq. In fact, their failure did not repeat with Iraq. If we mark the state of progress for post-Saddam Iraq at the point we deliberately chose to throw away the hard-earned peace to “end the war” in 2011, then the Iraq mission was a success by the 9/11 generation.
The 9/11 generation’s success with Iraq should have redeemed the American character from the Vietnam generation. Instead, it seems the Vietnam generation has insisted on replicating their generation’s thematic failure. They have forced their corrupt legacy upon the 9/11 generation by the extraordinary action of cutting off our vital protection of Iraq. Incredibly, they are following that cruel action with now arguing for knowingly sacrificing the Iraqi people to monsters.
Paul, You can be gone for decades and that ain’t gonna change.
Paul C. Schulte
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.
===========================
You no longer have any right to comment on science having rejected it all recently in public here.
Unless you wish to repent of that enormous sin, and join the rest of us who have not gone all what Gov. Jindal calls “the stupid party.”
I wrote to Eric up-thread: “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.”
Your comment in reply is disingenuous at best, poppycock at any other speed.
You need to have Sarah Palin read some modern sources to you.
Sources without infestations of dust mites on their covers and pages so you can get a feel for what life is like on main street in this century:
“Arthur Andersen LLP … formerly one of the ‘Big Five’ accounting firms … In 2002, the firm voluntarily surrendered its licenses to practice as Certified Public Accountants in the United States after being found guilty of criminal charges relating to the firm’s handling of the auditing of Enron …” (Wikipedia, Arthur Anderson).
Pentagon auditing is fundamental criminal accounting of the immune type, and it is far worse than the now unlicensed Enron ho Arthur Anderson.
I recommend that you stay out of the old book stores for awhile.
Paul-No. No she doesn’t. It’s beyond tiresome.
Well Paul,
What happened to AA after the Enron and other Corporations they worked for? Do you know where the nearest AA is located?
Eric
… this is my go-to reference for the Iraq war cost …
================================
It does not include Fleet Maintenance, Building of Ports, or the vast amounts of money allocated to bases, dictator aid, etc.
Do you think those aircraft now doing bombing sorties and aid drops in Iraq took off from a base in Florida?
(The Fleets and Terrorism Follow The Oil – 5)