“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Advice to the US Military: Obama has your Back. Act accordingly.

Do not think for one moment that this witch hunt will stop with the CIA, DOJ lawyers, elected politicians, staff or high ranking military officers. Blood is in the water and the blame American first supporters of Barrack (can't find my birth certificate) Obama have the scent. The left in this country has always hated the military and under Obama it will be payback time. The left has their Commander-in-Chief and you have a pretender.

Obama will have your back like every other bare back left behind on Obama's climb to power. He will be with you through thick and through thin. When things get too thick, he will thin out. The Marine One Helicopter will always be the first off the roof. Obama will not support US interests unless they are in lock step with the hard far International and Amerikan left.

Obama went to Europe using his soft diplomacy to get EU help in Afghansitan and came back with marshmallows. Not a peep out of Obama, not one word of criticism. The Germans won't fight and there will be no tangible assistance from other European powers. Americans and a few ardent allies will do the heavy fighting and take all the risks. They will "thank you for your service" with the conviction of "have a nice day" but when the New York Times starts opening the door on things they do not understand, your day will come.


Barack Obama opens Pandora's Box with green light for "torture" prosecutions
Posted By: Toby Harnden at Apr 21, 2009 Telegraph

Barack Obama's decision to give the nod to Congress and his attorney general to investigate and possibly prosecute former Bush administration officials opens a Pandora's Box that could ultimately consume his presidency.

When he released the four so-called "torture" memos - the Obama administration has now all but abandoned their use of the t-word - the new president, who has yet to pass the early landmark of 100 days in office - insisted he wanted to "move forward".

He added that "at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past".

When pressed yesterday about why the Justice Department officials led by Jay Bybee, now a federal judge, should not face prosecution, Mr Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs shot back: "The president is focused on looking forward, that's why."

Despite the rhetorical somersaults that Gibbs subjected himself to in arguing that there had been no policy shift, it was clear that there had been a major change of heart by Obama.

The platitudes about drawing a line under the past were still being mouthed but they rang decidedly hollow as Gibbs talked of an investigation on the scale of the 9/11 Commission - which took two years and millions of dollars.

Obama reversed himself because of press from Congressional Democrats, who want to haul officials before their committees for what could become the political equivalent of show trials, and Left-wing groups such as

The problem for Obama is that many on the Left will not be happy until President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are in leg irons and sharing a cell at the Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado along with the likes of the Unabomber .

Already, the fightback on the Right has begun. Although it might be questionable whether Cheney's re-entry into the political fray benefits Republicans who are themselves trying to move on from the Bush years, his argument that more memos ought to be released is hard to argue with.

Cheney and other former Bush administration officials, as well as the former CIA chief Michael Hayden - a intelligence professional and no political partisan - maintain strenuously that the interrogation techniques yielded information that saved American lives. The former vice-president maintains that there are memos that details this. If there are, we need to see them.

The hornet's nest that Obama has just stirred up is bad enough even in the current climate, when it is more than seven years since the US has been attacked by al-Qaeda.

It will be nothing, however compared to the aftermath of another terrorist attack on US soil - which many intelligence officials believe is inevitable - when Americans will once again be clamouring to find out why Obama did not "connect the dots" and demanding to know how he will stop another Islamist strike.


  1. The Euros have no dog in the Afghanistan fight, why expect them to step up.

    They do not have capacity to, regardless. They could not even scape together the helicopters required.
    But then again, neither could we.

    Their militaries are neutered, by US design. Their economies in shambles, without the capacity to print monetary standard money on linen paper.

    The NATO Team may have given lip service to the "Long War", but only to be polite. To expect more from them is misguided. Setting yourself up for disappointment.

    We're not tapping that honey pot.

  2. Obama skates while Right fumes.


    Several times a month in his young presidency, Barack Obama has done things that cause conservatives to bray, using the phrase once invoked by Bob Dole, “Where’s the outrage?!

    The outrage is definitely there, in certain precincts of Republican politics. What’s notable, however, is that it mostly has stayed there — with little or no effect on Obama.

  3. Beyond the move toward a new middle — one closer to the center-left — the sound of silence also reflects the times in which Obama is governing, where the challenges are more tangible and urgent.

    Having gay families over to the White House for the Easter Egg Roll tends to be eclipsed, for example, when the U.S. government is effectively taking over major American car companies.

    “He has the benefit of nobody paying attention to anything but the economy,” said Stuart Stevens, a longtime GOP strategist and author. “You have the economic equivalent of the country being at war. Nobody on Sept. 20, 2001, was particularly focused on cultural issues, either.”

    What’s more, the weakness of the Republican opposition has offered Obama a wider berth within which to operate.

    “It’s like playing against a football team that is tired and hurt,” said Stevens. “Republicans don’t have a message or a messenger, and that makes Obama look a lot better.”

    Alex Castellanos, a veteran GOP ad man, said the once-reliable wedge issues Republicans relied on simply don’t have the same impact anymore.

    “The foundation of the new Republican house is not going to be built on the cultural war,” Castellanos said.

    And then there is the nature of Obama’s victory last year.

    “He had a coalition where he didn’t have to figure out how to get socially conservative voters behind him,” noted Carrick, a South Carolina native who has helped his clients navigate the culture wars. “He won with younger voters, Latinos, African-Americans and college-educated suburban voters. Those folks, for different reasons, just don’t care about some of these issues.

    As we discussed with regards Rev. Wtight, most folk didn't care.
    It mattered not a lick the church Obama attended, because the church they attend, if they do, does not matter much to them.
    The Preacher even less so, especially if they believed the reason for going to the Church was really to see if Oprah showed up.

  4. Rat, does that "Minuteman" have a chance?

  5. At least we're all going to be reminded why we despise liberals so much.

    we get pissed at Conservatives if they're not Perfect, and we let this slime get in power, and pay the consequences for generations.

    God, I'm sick of politicians.

  6. 'Rat has cited polls of Barry's popularity that are bogus.
    I shall document later.
    Meanwhile, I repeat the Rufus Question:
    Can we finally get rid of
    Big John?

  7. Of winning in November, no, not a snowballs chance.

    Of taking McCain in the Primary, slim but yes, he could.

    Terry Goddard our Dem AG, he'd pass on his turn at Governor. Goddard was a popular Mayor, in Phoenix, and is the heir apparent to the Democratic machine, here. With Napalitano leaving and turning the Governorship to Jan Brewer, a popular Republican lady, his moving into the Governors' Office is not assured.

    Running against Mr Simcox would give Mr Goddard the opportunity to step up to the Federal level, quicker.

    The Dems hold the majority of the Congressional Districts and without the power of incumbency to protect the GOP candidate, Goddard would win, in a rout.

  8. I only cite the RCP average, doug.

    If that is bogus, then so is Forbes, which invested heavily in it. Which would shake my faith in another hallowed institution of my youth.

  9. Sorry Rufus:
    Like Texas and CA, AZ is now also apparently Nuevo Mexico.
    All hail the Americas!
    Hugo for Tsar.
    Pork is Good,
    Pork is Great.
    Vote Pig

  10. The CBS Poll once again sampled far more Dems than Pubs.
    ...all part of the Orwellian Reality Machine.

  11. Rufus,
    Vietnam Ace, Duke, is in prison for what amounts to PENNIES, compared to the Billions FrankenFeinstein appropriated for hubby Billionaire Blum.
    Fair's fair.
    The Dems and MSM Vs the Eunichs.

  12. The power of incumbency and McCain's solid hold of the Senior population, which is signifigent, here.

    Goddard could give the AGs office another tour, waiting for McCain to leave office, or Ms Brewer to stumble on the economic mess that Ms Napalitano left behind.

  13. Well, we did it to ourselves. I only voted for McCain because I wanted "bitching" rights."

    There was no chance in the world that the terrorist/illegal immigrant-loving, no waterboarding, global warming nonsense, capitalism despising cocksucker could get enough republican voters to the polls to win.

  14. » Janet Napolitano said what?NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, Sheriff Joe, he is being very political in that statement, because he knows that there aren’t enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.

    What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

    And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.

    Full transcript here.

    Julie Kirchner gently reminds the DHS Secretary of what the law actually says:

    In fact, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1325, crossing the border illegally is a crime–a misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for the second and subsequent offenses. But of course, ignoring or mischaracterizing the law is a very convenient way for those in power to avoid the laws they find most inconvenient. Sadly, statements such as these are also a signal that Americans will have to wait a long time before their government articulates any credible immigration enforcement policy.
    Jena McNeill at The Foundry sees through Napolitano’s parsing:

    This ‘interpretation’ of the law by Secretary Napolitano seems to be the latest in an effort by the Obama Administration to scale back interior immigration enforcement efforts in the United States.
    As recently as March 28th, Napolitano made the decision to delay a series of immigration raids and other workplace actions aimed at finding illegal workers.

  15. But are there not far more self-identifying Democrats, now, than Republicans?

    That is the art of polling, what questions are asked of which people.

    Which is why the Average may be close to an accurate representation. It mitigates against a singular set of inaccurate data.

    If the entire process is flawed, that case has yet to be made, as witnessed by November's election results when compared to the polling.

    The Average at RCP was, seemingly, pretty accurate.
    The State by State calls were, fer sur.

  16. Prosecuting NO "illegals" while prosecuting ALL Employers of illegals would remedy the situation back to workable levels.

    Mexico needs productive young workers,
    USA needs to put Citizens back to work.

  17. Let's be totally honest. The Republican party will never, again, attain power behind the Mitch McConnels, and Trent Lotts of the world. Don't get me wrong. I love Mitch McConnell. He's doing Yeoman's work in a tough job. But, the Demographics have run off and left the "Old," White, plantation/factory owners.

    We've GOT to find someone, somewhere, to rescue us from being the "Party of Stupid."

  18. "But are there not far more self-identifying Democrats, now, than Republicans?"
    Not to the degree cited by C-BS.

  19. Their militaries are neutered, by US design...

    I'll bite on your bait, rat.

    Neutered I can agree with, but you gotta 'splain the "by US design" part.

  20. It's going to be a long, discouraging spell, I'm afraid. I'm praying for 4; but, I gotta admit 8 is more likely. If it's only four, that means that it was an incredibly horrid four.

    I'm watching Geithner on CNBC. I have NO faith in this team. I'm afraid I've been overly "optimistic."

  21. We've been in Germany for 50 years?

    ...just for Trish's enjoyment, or to supplant Germany's non-existent defense?

  22. Yeah, buddy, he shore the hell is. I don't think I've ever seen anyone in so far over his head in my life.

  23. The US shouldered European defense, but not as amongst equals.
    Just look to the total dollar amounts spent, by the EU and US over the past 60 years.

    Their spending never came close, because the US shouldered the Security responsibility, to control the Authority.

    We provided the umbrella that kept them dry. With the intent to not allow another European military arms race destabilize their Continent.

    The de-militarized culture of Germany was an allied effort, to be sure.

  24. That effort was by design, not happenstance, I'm sure you'd agree, with that.

    Decisions made in 1948 that still impact US, today.

  25. Acting Freddie Mac CFO commits suicideApril 22, 2009 - 9:02am

    David Kellermann
    VIENNA, Va. -- David Kellermann, acting chief financial officer of Freddie Mac, committed suicide in his Hunter Mill Estates home Wednesday morning.


    "We were called from inside the house to come investigate an apparent suicide," Jennings says.

    "We're not going to give you details of the condition of the body, except to say it was an apparent suicide."


    Can't get the name Vince Foster out of my mind, like one of those tunes you wish would stop playing in your head.

  26. Damn, Bob.

    Was that you I saw at Drudge's place just now?

  27. In short, we got tired of going over and kicking the Germans out of France.

    Not that we were that crazy about Philipe Rothschilde, but every time they got to the channel they started banging on England.

  28. Of course, I guess that's being unfair to the Germans, because the British kept inserting themselves into the mess with alliances with the frogs.

    Ah, Crap. It's gonna be a long year.

  29. I have succeeded in finding evidence of Spanish speakers in Utah, Dominquez and Escalante--

    Spanish Fork
    Utah, United States
    city, Utah county, northern Utah, U.S. The city takes its name from the Spanish Fork River, along which the Spanish missionary-explorers Domínguez and Escalante traveled in their 1776 survey of the region. In 1854 Mormon settlers established a fort alongside the river, around which a town grew. Prosperous farms and food-production industries provided the economic basis for the city until recent years, when technology and defense-related manufactures took a more prominent role. Inc. 1858. Pop. (1990) 11,272; (2000) 20,246.

    United States history
    By 1800 Spain's hold on western America was a thin line of forts and missions. The outposts curved from east Texas west and north to San Francisco Bay. It had taken Spain two centuries of work to erect this protective wall across the north of Mexico. Within less than 50 years all this area was won by the westward expanding United States.
    This might be compared to the US claiming the moon, if we had done so.

  30. You used to be able to buy a piece of the moon, surveyed too, by a couple of guys that claimed it.

    Have you ordered your fly shooter, Linear?

    I was thinking it might be nice to have a spare, or for parts if needed.

    Or for shooting with both hands, as our best cowboys used to do.

  31. The Mormons traveled hundreds of miles--

    Financial resources of the Church members varied, with many families suffering from the loss of land and personal possessions in Missouri and Illinois. This impacted the resources and supplies each family could draw upon as they covered the more than 1,000 miles (2,000 km) to the Great Basin. Church funds were also limited at this time, but church leaders provided what funding and other material assistance they could to families and companies which were under supplied.You got to go at least 2 thousand miles to travel 'thousands' of miles.

    Work day here, later....

  32. Ordering today, Bob.

    They're on sale until April 24.

  33. Excepting, bob, that the US recongnized the Mexican claim, to the extent we offered to buy it.

    When that offered was rejected we went to war and took it.

    That is the fact of the matter.
    The Republicans thought it a mistake. US Grant thought it a "War Crime", though I'm not sure that term was in vouge, in that era.

    Grant was twice brevetted for bravery: at Molino del Rey and Chapultepec. He was a remarkably close observer of the war, learning to judge the actions of colonels and generals.

    In the 1880s he wrote that the war was unjust, accepting the theory that it was designed to gain land open to slavery. He wrote in his memoirs about the war against Mexico: "I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day, regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation."

  34. Talk about your apologists for the actions of past Presidents, by other, different, Presidents.

    US Grant and Barack Obama, brothers in Republican core values, they and Mr Lincoln.

  35. The US shouldered European defense, but not as amongst equals...etc.

    Strategic decisions made 60 years ago that were arguably obsolete by 1990 hardly explain away your "Their militaries are neutered, by US design."

    Seems like the rationale that suggests holding me and my children responsible for reparations to the descendants of former slaves.

    But, I'm forgetting that hyperbole is often the norm for you.

  36. The design of Fortress Europe is 60 years old, it has been US policy for that entire time.

    The US still has troops in Germany. So the Germans do not have to.

    So the "P;an" of the US shouldering the defense of Europe has not changed. Nor has it in Korea, for that matter, 50 years later.

    Short term solutions that become long term policy, that's the reality, just because it does not suit US, today.

    Well the 5 Ps are ever present.
    Prior planning prevents piss poor performance.

    The US strategic plan is 60 years old, it is past ready to retire.

    Afghanistan, vis a vie the Europeons, is a symptom of the rot in our current stratergy, not a cause.

  37. The US to deploy missile interceptors into eastern Europe, so the Europeons would not have to, themselves.

    Part of the continued, and up to 20Jan08, current plan to keep the Europeons dependent upon US for their Security, so we'd continue to enjoy having the Authority.

  38. Mexican oil production took a huge plunge in March. From about 3.2 million bpd, down to 2.65 mbpd. That means, after 2.1 mbpd consumption they had about .55 mbpd for export, vs. approx. 1.1 Million bpd in the prior months.

  39. I'd agree that by the 1990s the Policy should and could have been changed, but it was not.

    The missile defense of Europe, from possible attack from Iran, prove positive enough of that reality.

    Se where we agree that the Policy should be changed, I guess you are arguing that it already has, lineman?

  40. Oil has given up trying to trade on "fundamentals," now. It's just following the Dow. The "inventory" numbers are so fouled up that no living human being can figure out what, exactly, is where.

    I think most of the traders are coming to the conclusion, however, that when we "come out" of recession there won't be enough oil.

    While I was typing that oil fell $0.70. Sheesh.

  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

  42. YTD the mexicans have been exporting 1.261 million barrels per day, to US. With only Jan and Feb reported.

    You think that'll drop to half that, or even less, for March or April?

    A pre-Summitt message to Mr Obama, a shot across his bow, or is socialist PreMex unable to compete with the Chinese and Cubanos in exploiting the Gulf reserves?

  43. If consumption dropped to 2.0 million bpd, that still only leaves .65 mbpd for export, Rat.

  44. I just realized today is Wednesday. I guess another big inventory build got announced while ago, driving oil//gasoline lower.

  45. Rat, it's "Cantarell." The world's third largest oil field. It's down 34% YOY.

    And, the rate of decline is "accelerating."

  46. Could they be cutting production ala OPEC as opposed to 'running out'?

  47. I understand that, rufus.

    There are three obvious reasons, or a combination there of.

    1. The Mexicans cut back on production, in March, to send a message to obama, pre-Summitt.

    2. The management of Premex is so bad that their exploration and production capacity has been underfunded, while

    3. Their existing fields are dropping in its' reseve capacity and no longer producing at peak levels, in part because of #2 and/or there is less oil to be found.

    Could well be that all three are true, and Mexican production can increase, if there is a political decision made.

  48. No, Ash, they're pumping as fast as they can. They desperately need the money. It's Cantarell.

    That's what happens with the "Offshore" wells. When they go, they go "Fast."

  49. Or not, and there will be another revolution, in Mexico, as the foreign oil revenues dry up.

  50. Of course, they used Pemex as a cash cow for their "social" programs, allowing it not nearly enough money for maintenance, let alone developing new production.

  51. The insurection in Iraq caused 2 million Iraqis to flee their country, about 10% of the population of the country.

    If 10% of Mexico fled that country, that'd be 11 million of 'em. They will not be going to Guatemala, count on that.

  52. I think you can pretty much believe Mexican numbers. They're pretty transparent. Not like Saudi Arabia.

    There aren't three people alive that "Know" the true production of Saudi Arabia.

  53. Something like 60 families own 40% of the Wealth of Mexico. They've kept taxes too low to provide adequate services. The Mexican government collects about 9% of GDP in taxes. We collect about 19, or 20%.

    Mexico is, basically, a failed feudal state. Thus, the lawlessness.

  54. This comment has been removed by the author.

  55. Morgan Stanley lost their ass trading. A week ago everyone was "oohing, and ahing" over Goldman Sachs' trading profits.

    I wonder who they thought was on the "other side" of those trades? The idiocy is astonishing.

  56. My contention being that if "properly" managed the Mexican Reserves could get back to the 1.2 million barrels per day that we've come to expect.
    Even if production in the older, developed fields is falling off.

    At least it is a plausible and believable storyline.

    New management could be required.

    It is a US National Security issue and there is historical precedent for US annexing portions of Mexico.

    It is one of the scenarios that the Mex Army trains for. Chances are it would not come to armed intervention, though.

    Not how those things are done, now-a-days. But the mission goal will remain the same. Stabilize and increas Mexican production to maintain US oil supplies.

  57. Mexico will be out of the oil "exporting" business sometime late in 2010.

  58. Maybe, early 2011.

  59. We just brought Thunderhorse, online. It will produce about 300,000 bpd, but it took 20 Years to get it up and running.

    Mexico has Nothing in the pipeline.

  60. This is the latest from the EIA, which would indicate that mexican exports will drop by more than half, if rufus is correct.

    Total crude oil imports averaged 9.203 million barrels per day in February, which is a decrease of (0.649) million barrels per day from January 2009.

    Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in February, exporting 2.512 million barrels per day to the United States, which is a decrease from last month (2.544 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Mexico with 1.364 million barrels per day

    Of that 1.219 million barrels each day were crude.

  61. That'll be really bad, for US, rufus, in so many different ways.

  62. I will warn you, however, that you've got to take EIA import/storage numbers with an enormous amount of salt, right now, at least when they go beyond Canada, and Mexico.

    They are finding it impossible to reconcile the "floating" storage, import "accounting" issues. There's Strong suspicion of considerable "double counting" as paper barrels from offshore are brought onshore. It's too complicated for a redneck from Ms (and, I suspect, a lot of oil "traders.")

  63. Of all the oil producing countries in the world, there's not a single one that I'd bet your aunt Juanita's Chihuahua would have more production in 2010 than 2009. Not One.

    However, other than Iraq (maybe an increase,) Angola (a maybe,) and Saudi Arabia (probably in decline, but just impossible to tell) I'd bet my favorite bird dog on any other country being in decline, YOY.

  64. 'cept Canada unless the greens and low prices squash the oil sands.

  65. I should've said "'cept MAYBE Canada" because I really don't know my ass from page 4 on production levels...

  66. See, that's the deal; Canada's all about Tar Sands, now. New projects are expensive (some can, possibly, require up to $90.00/bbl oil) Then, there's "da greens."

  67. As price of oil rises so too does the cost to extract it from the tar sands. Kinda like chasing your tail. There was a day when the standard tar sand requirement was 60 bones a barrel.

  68. Receding Horizons

  69. Also, keep in mind that when an "Offshore" rig drops to a certain level they piss on the fire, and go home. They're expensive to operate. They take all they can get, as quick as they can get it, and call it a day. We've got a lot of offshore wells in the Gulf that won't be producing in 5 years.

    The North Sea is the "poster child" for this. Nigeria's in the same boat. Did I mention Prudhoe Bay dropping like a rock? They have to produce a certain amount to keep the pipeline going. When they drop below that it's Sayonara.

  70. "It's almost like the silence is deafening," said Tony Fabrizio, a GOP pollster. "This is the first time in probably 15 years that the social right has really no levers of power, and they are watching their agenda get rolled back."

    The national agenda is consumed by the economic crisis, with all of its tentacles. Last week, nationwide grassroots protests offered a sharp critique of President Obama -- but the "tea parties" came together around fiscal issues, not social ones

    Gay Marriage Spreads Without Backlash
    Culture Wars Are Raging -- but Noise Is on Spending, Not Social Issues

  71. Blair: Congress Approved CIA Interrogations Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:07 PM

    By: David A. Patten

    Before members of Congress rail at the CIA’s coercive interrogation of terrorists, they might want to blame those who authorized the measures in the first place: themselves.

    Yes, members of Congress approved the interrogation methods many of them now decry as torture.

    That revelation comes from an article posted Wednesday on by senior writer Stephen F. Hayes, who reveals that Adm. Dennis Blair, President Obama’s national intelligence director, circulated a letter within the intelligence community last week that could prove embarrassing to both Democrats and the Obama administration.

    Blair’s letter reportedly states that members of Congress repeatedly signed off on enhanced interrogation methods such as waterboarding.

    “From 2002 through 2006 when the use of these techniques ended,” Blair wrote, “the leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to Executive Branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques."

    Blair’s letter was distributed April 16, the same day the president released portions of newly declassified internal memos describing in detail how the interrogations were to be performed.

    Obama has been widely criticized by former Vice President Dick Cheney and others for holding back information that shows how successful the enhanced interrogations were in disrupting al-Qaida operations, including attacks against U.S. citizens.

    Blair’s letter also stated that coercive interrogation provided “high-value information” and contributed to a better understanding of al-Qaida. An abridged version of Blair’s statement was released to the public, but it did not refer to the program’s success or the authorization from Congress.

  72. You know a recession is on when Albertson's stops giving out a book of matches with a pack of smokes.