Monday Highlight

Good morning.

  1. Badda boom.
  2. Badda bing bang biff.
  3. After the room has been left.
  4. Actually, I think the reason the mainstream pressers haven’t been anthro-warming this thing is that lots of snow is predicted.
  5. So, where does e-reading come in?
  6. Castle law, ultimately I think I’m OK with this law, how about y’all?
  7. Evolution and milk.
  8. Evolution and forks.
  9. Libya links.
  10. Stress and temperature changes.
  11. Tools and the artisan.
  12. A book noted.
  13. After a long day, rest with a hippo.
  14. On drones.
  15. The testimony of the convict.
  16. In the slightly more liberal land than ours.
  17. Comparing questions.
  18. A heartbeat from the President lurks … what?

5 Responses to Monday Highlight

  1. 16.In the slightly more liberal land than ours.

    Recall the previous president here had ‘speech free zones’ established around him. If President Bush was visiting, say, a public park, the secret service could arrest anyone who dared wear a t-shirt with an anti-Bush slogan on it within a mile.

  2. Re Libya

    Still waiting to hear a coherent, let alone legitimate, criticism of the Obama administration on this. First we heard the words used by the administration were all wrong and getting the words right were so very important….yet the critics themselves botched their words multiple times. Then we heard it’s a changing story, but no actual change could be found. Then we heard lies, but no actual lie can be identified. Your Chicagobyz link seems to be centered on why some commander didn’t send troops in to stop the attack, yet the attack seems like it was over very quickly.

    14 on drones.

    Take a peek at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQIMGV5vtd4 look esp. around the 53 second mark. The reason drone use has increased is that it’s a new front in war, and it’s more effective than other fronts. Imagine a few thousand of those things dropped over an airfield. If an enemy fighter tries to take off they will swam into its engines and set themselves off. Or imagine thousands of swaming ones in the ocean…each one with a little bit of c4. A sub goes by and they attach to it migrating to seams and other sensitive areas to set themselves off at the right time.

    War in WWII seemed like it went as big as it could possibly go with nuclear weapons at the end but even with conventional weapons we perfected the mass bombing of cities, put the most firepower possible in the air or on the sea etc. The next front is the complete opposite, going as small as possible down to taking out individual targets while leaving people next door unharmed.

    Your blog friends seem unable to comprehend this?

    War is now effectively made from the White House. This may confuse some in America who know that despite Libya, despite operations across Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and Southwest Asia are convinced that the Obama administration is not actually at War, nor has ever started one, since that is a power reserved to Congress, but is only engaged in some piddling ‘kinetic military action’.

    War is not a ‘power reserved to Congress’, the President is called ‘Commander in Chief’ for a reason. As for the strange claim that this is all assassination….again if you think about it, it is totally off kilter to think the President can order a whole city nuked in the course of a war but cannot order an attack on a single individual.

  3. Boonton,

    Still waiting to hear a coherent, let alone legitimate, criticism of the Obama administration on this

    What you have to do is drop your blinders. Take that speech you cited that Obama gave right after the incident. Imagine for a moment that the speaker (and White House) are not Obama’s but Mr Bush’s and you are more cynical as to his motives and what he knows vs what he says. Then re-read the timeline and speeches. It will play out very differently. For example, in the speech in which you cite he notes terror he also cites the YouTube video, … which had nothing to do with it. A cynical person looking at what data has come out might realize (suspect) that the President knew that the Libyan embassy and CIA in the area had warned of gathering violence and that the White House had rejected messages via the CIA and other operatives in the area during the attack requesting that aid be rendered and this was turned down. How might a cynical President who puts his electoral race ahead of foreign policy and truth play that. Well, he might take the tack of getting the State department to push the video link (which in turn probably was a proximate cause of the outrage in the first place) and, well, you get the idea. Again. Take off the blinders and put on the other hat for a bit. You Libs like to tout how much better you are at that. This is, alas, a lie. But one we conservatives can turn to our advantage in actually trying to prompt you to try doing what you say you can do.

    Remember at the beginning of this you were arguing that the violent uprisings were spontaneous expressions of outrage over a short YouTube clip. This is the message the White House would want, not one of bumbling and misadventure or bad decisions at the helm. How else would an unprincipled man play that out? Kinda like Mr Obama played it seems.

    On the war/drone thing.

    As for the strange claim that this is all assassination….again if you think about it, it is totally off kilter to think the President can order a whole city nuked in the course of a war but cannot order an attack on a single individual.

    No. It is not strange. The President cannot kill individuals in nations with which we are not at war. You do not think this is right. Just turn it around. For that to be righteous you would also have to contend that Alexander Lukashenko can also order the assassination or attacks of, say, me … because I had linked dissident bloggers in his country in the past. The blogger I linked has gone dark (or worse gone bubbly and light and nonsense) after being tortured and imprisoned. My linking was frequent and sympathetic. I’m probably on a list over there.

    The Presidents war powers are not infinite or absolute. He is accountable. If Mr Bush acted in Libya as Mr Obama did you’d be crying about how much he has exceeded his powers to the high heavens. But because he’s a Democrat you’ve kept silent. The right, which generally grants the President more freedom regarding war … hasn’t offered much complaint but remember, a Democrat will not be in the White House forever. Those actions you’ve sanctioned may be repeated and you’ll have no grounds to complain.

    The reason drone use has increased is that it’s a new front in war, and it’s more effective than other fronts.

    Not necessarily. Clausewitz taught that war was imposing your will on the other nation. Terror is ideological and a broad non-national expression of a movement. Assassination of leaders is not going to work as well as Hercules chopping of Hydra heads. Two will pop up without cauterization. Abstract terrors from bombing and airstrikes has always tended psychologically to harden, not weaken resolve. This less was well learned in WWII but you missed that class I think.

    Your blog friends seem unable to comprehend this?

    And I don’t think you’ve comprehended the forces you’re embracing. Some earnest fellow in a high place will grab the stick you’re offering and his jackboot will leave our necks 50 generations later .. if ever.

  4. Boonton,
    Remember one more thing. You point out WWII growing and so on. Recall the cold war. That was a war, which because of nuclear dangers and escalation went “small”. It was also illegal. The illegality of cold war actions was a good thing. Your hypothesis is that cold war tactics, spying, torture, assassination should be legalized, because that’s the way of the future.

    You haven’t convinced me that you are correct. Try again.

  5. Boonton,
    It is strange that you cannot see any difference between bombing German factories (or wartime factories at Nagasaki) and bombing a town to kill a particular individual. If you want to kill Mr Boonton … even if we are at war and the man you have angered is the President, the killing of an individual requires due process.

    As Commander in Chief … Presidents who dive to the level of tactics do not do well. Commanders in Chief (and Congress) should set strategic goals and strategic constraints and leave the details to the professionals. When the don’t, historically speaking, the results have not been good. This Libyan kerfuffle is emblematic of that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>